No one said it happened because he owned a gun. But the gun enabled it, making it an externality.
This is the why we have a gigantic wasteful and ever-growing government. Talk about negative externalities, what about those in government itself? Do you ever think of those? This is the first line approach of every tyranny - let the government take from producers and just "do something" - anything that looks like we put in the effort.
You ask me for studies - where are your studies showing the efficacy of government programs? Pick a few programs and show me how they work so well, if you can find one that isn't administratively top heavy, which I doubt. We obviously do not share a common idea of the purpose of government or the effects of taxation.
No, psychology is not a broader way of looking at neuroscience, the two sciences may cross over from time to time but otherwise have nothing to do with each other. Psychology is the study of behavior, true behavior is a brain function but so is everything else that is thought.
Really the treatment of psychological disorders require the understanding of why they exist.
Yes effecting neurology will effect every thing mentally. Drinking effects neurology, pain effects neurology. Events effect neurology, neurology doesn't effect anything. Neurological reactions are reactions. Not causes.
You misunderstand what an externality is and then you attack Pigouvian taxes with a political argument. So I have nothing left to say to you here. Keep crying about tyranny and how this is all so simple because it isn't. And even the top economic advisors for the GOP know it (look up Mankiw and the Pigou club - he is all about Pigouvian taxes because they work- markets aren't perfect, I don't know why you seem to think they are).
Same response as above. Stop the politics- I made this thread in the economics forum for a reason. No one is making a pro-government argument here anyway. I am saying there are market failures- Pigouvian taxes help offset them.
Let me take this in another direction. For those who are against Pigouvian taxes in general, what do you suppose we do about the market failure of not accounting for negative externalities? Also, if you are making this argument from a freedom standpoint, do you not believe in J.S. Mill's Harm Principle?
The harm principle related to the potential for harm, in the CT case law did all it could by making murder illegal. taxing an object in no way reduces potential for harm
I Am against pigouvian taxes because it us infringement by the government to manipulate the behavior of the entire nation. It requires choosing a behavior that the government doesn't like (not their purpose) and applying punitive fees on it.
Behaviors such as smoking, and drinking. Murder, that is a behavior that we all agree must be punished by our government, if you wanted to tax murder, okay, but bullets that makes no sense.
I am not sure what harm principle you are referring to, but I was talking about John Stuart Mill's as defined in On Liberty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle
Let me put it this way. You believe in property rights, right? And if someone damages someone else's property you believe that the victim has a right to compensation of some form, right? If you answered yes to both these, then that is the issue at hand. A negative externality is a damage to society's property rights. Like how pollution is a damage to all of us because it is bad for our health to breathe it in- that is a negative externality. While that damage is there, in a pure taxless market transaction, the people who are doing the transaction, pay a disproportionate amount of the damages- the rest are paid by everyone else. In the pollution example, it hurts their lungs, but it hurts everyone else's too. A Pigouvian corrects that market failure by internalizing the cost and making them pay for that damage they cause through tax. To further reduce the damage, you can choose to spend that tax revenue in a beneficial way, but that is besides the point here- the tax itself is the market-correcting function.
Seems like a weak connection to me. If somebody damages property they did it, they should pay the consequences.
Bullets are not the cause of the harm in this case, people are. Bullets are inanimate, they just suit in a box, they have no negative externality. Bullets don't kill people they can't.
less say most assaults were committed with crowbars. Put a pigouvian tax on crow bars, but why punish the people who perchase the crow bar for its intended perpose.
To correct for some market deffeciancy? What market gets hurt by 27 kids dieng, what is theeconomic cost?
To me it just seems like using a hammer to paint and a paintbrush to drive nails. This has nothing to do with the economy, there is no economic burden that everybody should pay for.
No, your two examples were nothing like the comparison.
Say a pigouvian tax on lead paint or on tobacco. I can see it there because there is a direct link. bullets to I don't know what isn't as strong of a link as there us between cigarettes and emphysema. Take the dollars generated by the purchase of cigarettes to equal out the cost that is incurred by the use of such products, good.
Users of bullets don't create any economic gap, so the connection is not there
Okay so now you agree that Pigouvian taxes do have a place when there is a negative externality, a point that you previously could not get behind, right?
So then, the question is whether bullets have a negative externality. Considering a gun crime can't happen without bullets, I would say, yes they do. Because just like tobacco does not always cause emphysema or lung cancer, a bullet is not always used in a gun crime. But sometimes, it is, just like sometimes emphysema or other health problems come about with tobacco. It is only in those sometimes where society incurs a cost, but it is there.
So then, the question is whether bullets have a negative externality. Considering a gun crime can't happen without bullets, I would say, yes they do. Because just like tobacco does not always cause emphysema or lung cancer, a bullet is not always used in a gun crime. But sometimes, it is, just like sometimes emphysema or other health problems come about with tobacco. It is only in those sometimes where society incurs a cost, but it is there.
Well, tobacco is already taxed and there has been discussion of taxing alcohol as well. Why not? Ammo is used to kill things, as is tobacco, so it makes sense. A small tax is not going to make people go bankrupt. If you're buying ammunition anyway, you have some sort money. I've sold it for two years, it isn't exactly cheap to begin with.
I could sort of see that connection but it is still to weak. If a person smokes for 50 years he is likely to have health problems
If I shot guns for 50 years I am extremely unlikely to have caused any harm. I have 700 rounds for each gun I own that is perhaps 12000 round. None will inflict damage not to mention the countless many i shot prior. Apigouvian tax for a statistical nonexistent, sorry not worth it to me.
What do you think the cost of a shooting like that in CT is? I would say it is so high that we can't even place it into monetary terms. Considering the cost is that high, how is it not worth it? And it is not as if this happens once every 50 years- it has already happened several times in 2012 alone.
Ammo is not used to kill things, such a tiny fraction of it is used to kill things and an even tinyer fraction is used to hurt people.
So no it's used for recreation.
I disagree. There is no way to tax this any other way- financial works. Even with tobacco, you are taxing financially for a problem that is non-financial (health).
Similar threads
