If it is committed with guns, it is a negative externality of guns and bullets (amongst other things possibly)... And don't say it isn't because by definition economically it is. Much like alcohol and cigarettes don't lead to health problems in everyone, it is the aggregate that matters when you are looking at market. That is why so many economists support things like the alcohol tax, cigarette tax, and carbon tax (and that includes those who support Republican candidates- see Greg Mankiw).
Because that is how it is. That is how every tax is. You never get a completely even pay:use ratio. For example, with things like infrastructure, corporations and rich people often use and rely on those a lot more than poor people do. But then even within the group of rich people, some (i.e. the retired) will possibly use it less than other rich people. You will never be able to tax everyone in a way that equals their usage of national resource. Nor would you necessarily want to- for one, national deficit spending can be a good thing sometimes.
That aside, if it were somehow possible to do what you wanted, who would have been taxed in the CT case? After all, it was the boy's mother who owned the gun, not him.
The incidence of tax is a very studied topic. There are a lot of interesting studies out there, but it becomes clear that perfection is not a possibility. Nor is the definition of perfection since that varies with everyone when it comes to what policies to implement.
Edit: As for hindering commerce, the whole point here is that the market is not pricing in the negative costs of the sale- the point is to make costs higher and that might hinder commerce, but that makes the outcome more economically optimal over the long run. Free markets are not perfect- one of their flaws is not being able to account for all costs (i.e. negative externalities). Pigouvian taxes try to correct that.
It isn't a negative externally of guns out bullets. Violence isn't An economic principle. I really don't care that other economists will support this idea out other forms of robbery. It's clear they do not understand psychology or crime. Taxing products doesn't lessen violent crime.
Economists wasn't to think everything can be fixed thought the economy, door things just don't have an economic propose.
Go to your local prison and ask all the murders there. "if there was a100% tax on bullets would you have killed someone?"
No pigovion taxes are in no way the reason people quit smoking, i quit because mostly my psychological dilemma had been cleared up and because my health was at risk it was never about the money especially since i bought cigarettes internationally and side stepped the sinner tax that has absolutely no effect on anything but national sales.
I think a good way to reduce crime is to understand why it occurs not to tax a product that some people don't like.
Crime occurs in spite of cost, frankly a few more dollars a bullet isn't going to stop someone who doesn't care about his freedom. If sometime wants to murder they are going to. The real cost is their entire asset worth sometimes their life.
They AR not going to say "man the increased cost of bullets and guns makes me just not want to rob and murder people" sorry it doesn't work
You don't understand the economics here. There is economics in everything including violence. Economics is merely a more scientific (than politics) way of looking at things. And again, I made this thread in the economics forum so we can have a discussion about economics. If you are not interested in discussing economics or you think it is stupid or whatever, then you can go to the politics subforum and discuss this topic there. This is in the economics forum so I would appreciate it if you discuss the economics and if you don't want to, you don't have to respond here.
Also, you misunderstand the point of Pigouvian taxes on cigarettes- it isn't to make anyone necessarily quit- it is to factor in the cost of the negative externality into the price. Just like a bullet tax isn't to get anyone to necessarily stop buying bullets- it is to factor in the cost of the negative externality.
Also, you misunderstand the point of Pigouvian taxes on cigarettes- it isn't to make anyone necessarily quit- it is to factor in the cost of the negative externality into the price. Just like a bullet tax isn't to get anyone to necessarily stop buying bullets- it is to factor in the cost of the negative externality.
Except you refuse to say how your free to the public programs will help the matter in any way. You can say you started this thread to talk about facts but you won't give any. Show me a mental health program that has helped in the past. Tell me what kind of program, and don't just say "education." If you propose a new tax for a program show what education, what information is worth spreading at the cost of a tax on everyone who buys ammo - for hunting, for skeet/target shooting, for self defense or the one out of millions who buys the ammo for a criminal activity. If mental health programs are effective you should be able to show that economically, at least.
The CT shooter was receiving mental health counseling most likely for years, and was probably on medications. His mother for some reason, waited until he was an adult to attempt to commit him. He found out and killed her and tried to kill as many of the students that she had associated with as a volunteer at his old school. He got mental health care - the best his mothers high income would buy. It did not work.
You don't think groups like AA help? There are support groups for everything including mental health issues that tons of Americans rely on every day to help them get through addictions, sicknesses, etc.
Furthermore, a mental health program could constitute greater access to cheaper or free mental health services - i.e. psychiatrist access. You don't think that would help?
It could also come in the form of advertising and marketing to spread information about mental health, how to get help, and basic facts like how the social stigma is wrong.
I am not sure how valid your claims about Lanza are about the meds and mental counseling for years and even the reason why he did this, but I haven't been following his story that much- do you have any news articles to share on that point?
Either way, are you trying to make the claim that mental healthcare is a sham? That is quite laughable. A less than 100% effectiveness rate does not mean it is a sham- no healthcare has a 100% effectiveness rate.
Most of the information comes from his brother and neighbors and of course we won't know the exact details until the investigation is complete. The picture being painted by the family and friends is that of a trouble youth who had been under treatment for some time and was about to be committed. It is unlikely that he would not have been on medication with his long history of mental issues, imo. But, here is a news story that shows some of what the family's friends and neighborhood sources have said to the media:
http://www.newser.com/story/159568/mom-planned-to-have-lanza-committed-source.html
No, mental healthcare is not a sham and there are some excellent treatments being used but just creating a new tax-funded program for the vague purpose of "educating" doesn't seem prudent to me.
About AA - the thing about that program is it requires participation on the part of those with drinking problems. In other words, they have to want to get better. It works, because the people who use it are dedicated to improving their lives. I don't think alcohol problems are mental illness. It works for the same reason Weight Watchers works. Many people with mental illness are not motivated in the same way so I don't think AA is a good example of "mental healthcare."
http://www.newser.com/story/159568/mom-planned-to-have-lanza-committed-source.html
No, mental healthcare is not a sham and there are some excellent treatments being used but just creating a new tax-funded program for the vague purpose of "educating" doesn't seem prudent to me.
About AA - the thing about that program is it requires participation on the part of those with drinking problems. In other words, they have to want to get better. It works, because the people who use it are dedicated to improving their lives. I don't think alcohol problems are mental illness. It works for the same reason Weight Watchers works. Many people with mental illness are not motivated in the same way so I don't think AA is a good example of "mental healthcare."
Last edited:
I am in the healthcare field and let me tell you that you can ask any doctor, pharmacist, nurse, or whatever about how much misinformation is out there and how much health illiteracy costs the country overall in healthcare costs. It is tremendous. There is a lot of data out there on this topic too from treatment compliance figures to the lack of knowledge on at-risk lifestyles.
You are bringing up the 100% solution issue again. There is no perfect solution for everything. It won't work for all people, but it will work for others- to know that there are others out there to help them through this, etc. It will also help remove the stigma with mental illness. And there are studies out there that show the cost-benefit of groups like AA and how much they do in fact save the entire country. But I am not an expert on these issues, I will admit that- there are people much better qualified to assess what sort of programs will work the best and they can help determine the specifics, but it is quite obvious that there are programs and outreach that will help with this issue. If anything, it is worth trying. The negative externality of bullets is there- let's make the price reflect the true cost. If it turns out these programs don't work, I am sure we can find something else to spend it on- it doesn't make taxing the negative externality a bad idea either way.
The point he is trying to make is that it doesn't help everybody, the ones who fall thought the cracks may be inclined to murder children. Obviously the CT shooter is nit a success story. A mental illness can be out of the reach of mental health professionals also. Things like addiction require a choice to give it up on the patients part, to realize something is indeed wrong. The treatment is completely dependent on the patients desire to get better. Therapy doesn't fix anything unless it is first recognized as a treatment for a mental incapacity. unlike swallowing a pill out having surgery, that will absolutely fix an illness it doesn't matter if you don't want to get the surgery if out is preformed you are better. Mental illness is all in the minds of the people afflicted and frankly the people treating the illness where a person with a tumor knows they have a tumor because they can physically see it, a person suffering from paranoid delusions brought on by depression is not able to physically see their illness, sometimes not even able to perceive it. The mental health industry is only to help people who want it.
now you can detect problems in the brain by measuring brain chemistry, but that may simply be an effect. A case of this was a man in his early twenties was severely depressed, he drank, he was mean to all of his loved ones. The analysis proved he was indeed depressed. He saw therapists they have him drugs, the drugs turned him into a zombie, he was lethargic and disconnected. He was in danger of losing his career, his family. He was very upset that he couldn't control himself, he quit taking the drug and his depression returned, he began a self guided inner reflection practice against the advise of his therapist after months he all of the sudden he remembered something, he was molested by a male cousin in his child hood. The memory was recovered only by defying the advice of the therapist, mainly because the therapist couldn't diagnose the problem he only treated the symptom. The therapist had no idea how to diagnose the problem when his patient was a child he was himself a child. I am certain the therapist was only trying to help but it was ineffective in this case. Imagine that same scenario on a person not interested in helping themselves or getting better. Perhaps he would have become a pedophile, or a rapist, that is often the case.
Addiction is mental first off. At the same time it is chemical because mental is chemical. Second, I already admitted it isn't a 100% solution but there is no 100% solution. If it reduces the risks it is worth it. Read my last response to him- I cover your points there.
What do you think all in the minds is? It isn't magic. They are chemical imbalances. Look at all the anti-depression drugs on the market that have gone through the full set of clinical trials and look at that data vs. the placebos. In many cases, even if the person doesn't want the help, we can still help (and not just with drugs, that was an example).
What do you think all in the minds is? It isn't magic. They are chemical imbalances. Look at all the anti-depression drugs on the market that have gone through the full set of clinical trials and look at that data vs. the placebos. In many cases, even if the person doesn't want the help, we can still help (and not just with drugs, that was an example).
Mental illness seems to be little more than a societal designation based on the established norm...that said.
It is well established that the brain functions on chemical and electrical impulse...and can be manipulated based on this. Clinical and undeniable evidence has shown results with this manipulation, some positive and some negative.
Considering the complexity and unknown aspects of doing so, this is not a reliable approach, though indeed it may help. Taxing ammunition will likely have even less effect.
Hell, anyone who thinks even banning the most dangerous guns will make a measurable difference is likely missing 90% of the issue.
We need to go back in time 150 yrs. to truly address this issue.
I absolutely agree metal health treatment isn't 100% effective, I think the shooting in CT proves that. I really think the killer represents the margin that isn't effective. Who knows why, perhaps things haired to him perhaps he was born with chemical imbalances. It was worth the risk to try and help him, but there is no possible way to know how deep this mental illness went. What the cause of out was, that requires a fill account of his life and the impact that events had on him, if he was the only witness but his mind blocks it out, there is no way of knowing, now it's to late.
I would go farther with addiction, certainly org is mental illness but in many cases it is a symptom of a deeper mental illness
there are chemical imbalances but there are causes for them that are not magic. A small percentage off them are birth defects.
Just like there are broken legs but they don't break magically. A car hit you or you fell off a latter.
The goal to fixing the issue isn't just elevate the pain but to reconstruct the broken leg.
Giving drugs to a person to alleviate the pain be it physical or mental isn't wrong but pretending the problem is fixed because the pain is gone the problem is fixed isn't treatment, that is the major problem with the mental health industry.
True medicine designed to alter brain chemistry will indeed alter brain chemistry, I will never argue that with you. It actually even serves a propose in treating psychological illnesses. But psychological illnesses are not purely physical. In fact most psychological illnesses start at a non internal cause.
Of course the healthcare community wants the government cash cow to fund more healthcare programs, whether they work or not. I remain against the idea.
Look, I think you are a well meaning person. Most people in healthcare are. I think I have expressed my opinion sufficiently: creating a new tax payer funded program paid for by a bullet tax would not help matters and there is no proof that it would. It has been interesting to see how hard you fight for more taxation.
It is all about weighing percentages. More mental health access can reduce the numbers.
That aside, this whole mental health thing is a tangent. The point of the OP is that these crimes are a negative externality of gun and bullet ownership so to correct for a market shortcoming in pricing, it should be taxed. Think of it as analogous to carbon emissions- right now a company does not properly factor in the cost of the pollution into its prices because the cost is shared by the entire world- not just it- that pretty much makes it negligible for the company considering the size of the Earth. A Pigouvian tax on carbon emissions would by put in place to internalize that cost to the company. Same issue here with the bullets.
Economically, a valid counterargument might be that there is a greater positive externality of gun and bullet ownership that offsets the negative externality in and of itself. But no one has made that argument yet. Instead, the focus of this discussion has been on the use of the tax money, which wasn't really my point in the first place. But that is fine- interesting discussion nonetheless.
Yes, but they are chemical (which depending on how you define it is physical). And drugs and behavioral solutions (talking, therapy, etc.) can alter that chemical state.
There is no proof it wouldn't! If there is a negative externality, the point is let's put a tax in place to correct for that market failure. What to spend the money on is a secondary issue- we can look at the literature, which I believe strongly suggests at least trying this sort of thing because it may well be quite beneficial. If not, we will spend it elsewhere- maybe to cut down on the deficit. The point is the tax itself is to correct for a market shortcoming.
And some of what you say is flatout wrong, but I think it goes back to your non-scientific simplicity position. The data is out there on a lot of things that do in fact help. Think it is wrong? Tell me why the methodology is wrong or show me a scientific study suggesting otherwise. You can't just say I intuitively doubt it. The facts are above my or your intuition.
You understand that psychology is a broader way to look at a more detailed science of neuroscience because of logistical barriers to studying and diagnosing everything through neuroscience, right? Just like all biology is chemistry and all chemistry is physics, all psychology at the root is neuroscience. So yes, affecting the neuro will change the psych.
no, gun ownership does not have thus negative externality. This incident did not occur because sometime owns a gun. It is because someone assaults someone. How many people who own guns don't do this? He want the legal owner of those guns fittest off it isn't legal to own an assault weapon in CT. Secondly a 20 year Olds can't own a pistol legally. So this isn't about gun ownership, but theft.
Similar threads
