We've been over this. The bullets enabled him to do it. They played a role (as did other things- no one is denying that). But the bullets were one of the key ingredients. It is also one that can be taxed fairly easily. Put that together and you might have a case for a Pigouvian tax.
Without bullets he would not have been able to kill 27 people- that's for sure. A knife or whatever would not have been able to do it. The bullets played a role. You are not going to have a perfect incidence of tax no matter what. Cigarette smokers place a disproportionate burden on society too. That doesn't mean taxing them is a bad idea. True justice is not possible nor should we attempt to achieve it- utility is what matters in the long run.
Edit: Here's another way to think of it. Every person who buys a cigarette increases health risks. Everyone person who buys a bullet increases the risk of such a school shooting.
without bullets 27 people wouldn't have died? That is speculation. If he hadn't shot them they wouldn't have died. Use of an object to kill is not because of the object. The object is incidental.
A smoker doesn't risk anybody's health but his own and people who choose to be near him.
furthermore every person who buys cigarettes and smokes them has bad health. So the tax on those makes sense. A statistical 0% of bullets are used in crime so the tax makes no sense.
Besides you have failed to prove an economic cost that could be filled with such a tax.
Sorry I still don't see the connection
How else do you think 27 people would have died? The bullets enabled it- you really think he would have been able to do it with a knife or something? That's laughable.
As for smokers harming themselves- you are missing the point of the externality. I think you are still having trouble understanding what an externality is, which is why you don't see the argument for a potential bullet externality. You aren't necessarily taxing the smoker because he is harming himself- you are taxing him because he is harming others.
As for smokers harming themselves- you are missing the point of the externality. I think you are still having trouble understanding what an externality is, which is why you don't see the argument for a potential bullet externality. You aren't necessarily taxing the smoker because he is harming himself- you are taxing him because he is harming others.
A bomb, poison, a car, all are easier to get than a gun, I would think they would be more dEadly
You are neglecting murderous intent. It is inventive, the gun made it easier to commit murder than beating 27 people to death or stabbing them to death. Its almost like you think mass murder didn't exist before guns were invented.
But everything aside you have failed to show how these tax moneys will offset a non monetary cost.
This sort of mass murder didn't exist before guns. Certainly not to this extent and ease. And bombs are easier to get where you live than bullets? Wow...
And we OFTEN use money to offset non-monetary costs or to pay for them. Whenever you buy something at the store you are doing that. Insurance, healthcare, whatever- they are all examples of that. In fact, it is very rarely that you trade currency for currency unless you are a forex trader, banker, or institutional investor or something.
And we OFTEN use money to offset non-monetary costs or to pay for them. Whenever you buy something at the store you are doing that. Insurance, healthcare, whatever- they are all examples of that. In fact, it is very rarely that you trade currency for currency unless you are a forex trader, banker, or institutional investor or something.
You can make a bomb with the stuff under your sink. so yes unless super markets are foul of ammo then there are things that can be made into bombs.
In my state you have to be 21 to buy pistol ammo and 18 to buy shot gun and rifle ammo. No such restriction on a canister of propane and galvanized nails.
We do use money to buy things, are you suggesting we use money to pay murderers not to murder? This is really bizarre, but I have been saying that all along. You can't buy away rage, or mental illness.
Pigovian taxes are not a solution. I understand out in the case of tobacco, I don't agree with it. I will likely never agree with piouvian taxes in any form.
But the connection to bullets is really weak.
This is bizarre to you because you don't realize that this is what the market is. You exchange a financial good- money- for non-financial entities. A Pigouvian tax to correct for market failure is no different in that regard.
You don't agree with a Pigouvian tax for tobacco? So you are okay with someone placing a known cost on society instead of attempting to internalize it to those created the cost? In other words, you are okay with market failure? What exactly is your ideal situation here?
Out of curiosity do you believe that free market capitalism is flawless?
There is no market failure caused by bullets. This is bizarre because there is no connection.
There is no market cost. You keep claiming that there is, but you haven't said what it is. I don't see how buying cigarettes or bullets causes a market failure. It is actually the opposite because money for products is exchanging hands, commerce is occurring, pigouvian tax will stifle it slightly causing a market failure. When the government places extra burden on things it isn't good for the consumer, the manufacture, the retailer or the government, this is why I am against pigoavian taxes.
Yes capitalism is flawless in theory. When it is applied it isn't.
I don't think you know what market failure is- adding a Pigouvian tax isn't a form of market failure even if it stifles trade because for one, a tax isn't a market action- it is a government action.
That aside, when a shop sells you cigarettes and then you smoke them, you place a cost on society. You did not internalize that cost and neither did the shop when you bought the cigs. That is the market failure. Another way to look at it is pollution. When a factory pollutes, it hurts society- it places a cost on society. In a free market, the factory does not have to pay for that cost it puts on society.
You are presumably against vanadalizing someone's property. But for some reason you seem to be fine with ruining the air they breathe or making them pay for your increased healthcare costs. How do you justify that?
That aside, when a shop sells you cigarettes and then you smoke them, you place a cost on society. You did not internalize that cost and neither did the shop when you bought the cigs. That is the market failure. Another way to look at it is pollution. When a factory pollutes, it hurts society- it places a cost on society. In a free market, the factory does not have to pay for that cost it puts on society.
You are presumably against vanadalizing someone's property. But for some reason you seem to be fine with ruining the air they breathe or making them pay for your increased healthcare costs. How do you justify that?
I don't know what you mean by market failure, I know what it is, it a failure in the market
Again if you have some special our more specific meaning for it, you have failed to communicate that. Some guy coughing in the morning isn't a market failure by the definitionI understand.
I don't think air pollution is nearly the problem you think it is. If that is the angle you are using on tobacco, I fail to see it, people have been smoking tobacco for thousands of years. I don't think it hurts society, and all the "costs" are on the user.
I don't buy air pollution being more than a minor issue, if that. These are not my morals, I am sorry but we disagree.
Just look it up. This is the economics forum- I assume you know the definition of "market failure". Don't feel like spelling it out for you when wikipedia can easily do that.
You say tobacco doesn't hurt society in the manner I suggested, but what exactly do you think the healthcare costs it puts on society are? It is a harm. A lot of this ends up being paid by the public in emergency medicine, through medicare/caid, etc. And even with private insurance, the increased demand for healthcare at a time when there is already a shortage hurts society. As might the premature death of the person in many cases.
As for pollution, I forgot you are a global warming denier, but even then you should know pollution can kill you. Ever get a puff of smoke in your face that affected your breathing? Then you should understand. The harms of pollution are long proven. If you choose to deny the science, so be it, it is just unfortunate.
You say tobacco doesn't hurt society in the manner I suggested, but what exactly do you think the healthcare costs it puts on society are? It is a harm. A lot of this ends up being paid by the public in emergency medicine, through medicare/caid, etc. And even with private insurance, the increased demand for healthcare at a time when there is already a shortage hurts society. As might the premature death of the person in many cases.
As for pollution, I forgot you are a global warming denier, but even then you should know pollution can kill you. Ever get a puff of smoke in your face that affected your breathing? Then you should understand. The harms of pollution are long proven. If you choose to deny the science, so be it, it is just unfortunate.
My definition is suitable, it isn't me trying to convince somebody that market failure means someting more than a failure inthe market. People dyeing isn't a failure in the market that is what everybody does.
I am absolutely for the elimination of social money for medical care, that is the cost on society. The solution is quit charging society not charge society more.
I am not a global warming denier, science has not even proven a man made cause for global warming. There are people that call themselves scientists that insist that global warming is man made because they get grants to fund their research from politics that are heavily invested in false green technology. Meanwhile all of the science that says global warming is not happening our being caused by man us being denied.
I am skeptical, there is no proof, if there is i haven't seen it. You say its science, I say its propaganda.
Oh boy, now you are rejecting the definition for market failure. Anyone can google it and see market failure doesn't include the effects of a tax reducing trade volume.
And more conspiracy theories, unscientific skepticism, and false assumptions about climate change research...
Edited to fix grammatical error
And more conspiracy theories, unscientific skepticism, and false assumptions about climate change research...
Edited to fix grammatical error
I am not rejecting market failure, market meaning the trading of goods and services, and failure meaning not performing. By people smoking, goods and services are still being traded.Oh boy, now you are rejecting the definition for market failure. Anyone can google it and see market failure doesn't include the effects of a tax reducing trade volume.
You have failed to communicate what this means to you, i can't read your mind. being that you chose such a general word to discribe such a specific topic it is your burden to properly communicate. I will misconstrue your words because you have allowed for that.
I don't have any problem explaining concepts to you especially if you misunderstand.
This is a communication breakdown, I ask you to communicate, you refuse, this debate is a stalemate because you can't or don't wish to communicate properly. So why continue.
It isn't a false assumption, I haven't seen proof, how is that false. it isn't a conspiracy theory to not see proof. I know people who pretend they are smarter think that they should be taken at their word, but i am not that gullible. I want fact not hearsay.
I am using the economic definition for market failure. I am not going to go google it for you- you can do it if you want to learn it, otherwise don't. It is not a communication failure on my part- you have the same Internet I do- use it if you don't understand something.
As for proof of global warming- no one is obligated to hand you the studies on a platter. Again, you have the Internet- use it.
As for proof of global warming- no one is obligated to hand you the studies on a platter. Again, you have the Internet- use it.
I was using the economic term too, still don't see a market failure. You have failed to prove your market failure so pigovian taxes on bullets are not a solution to anything.
If you want me to swallow far fetched ideas, you do have to provide research. I can digg attend on the internet and find text “proving" anything.
Its hearsay, i don't care who the producer of hearsay is, it still isn't proof.
Similar threads
