Do you think that a tobacco tax is like that? How about a lawsuit settlement or decision over a non-financial dispute that ends in a financial transfer?
Our society often uses financial transfers to offset non-financial costs. It is often the most effective thing we can do. In the end, value is value. You might not be able to convert (or even measure) all the non-financial value to a financial figure, but you can offset it partially.
The cost to cigarette smokers is health, not financial. But we can try to offset it financially.
A health cost isn't a financial cost. If you get sick, do you consider that cost to be a loss of money? Of course not. Now you might spend money to get better, but that is a separate cost.
The examples are everywhere. Whenever you buy something with money, you are using money to get something in return that is a different form of value. You also see it with insurance- you might have life insurance and the family gets paid money in compensation for when their loved one passes away. Of course the guy's life was not a financial loss and no amount of money might make up for him being gone, but the money can help- it is the same idea here with taxing bullets.
No it isn't the same, life insurance is to provide a family with money due to the income loss of the person dyeing, or to pay for the cost of funeral arrangements.
If I were to die my spouse doesn't currently work and my child can't work, so this money is to help with the financial loss, it isn't a reward.
There is no financial problem caused by bullets. There is financial problems caused by smoking.
Guns and bullets don't kill people, people do. No matter what mental gymnastics you pull it isn't going to change that, sorry.
And without bullets they wouldn't be able to mass murder people as they do (at least not as easily). No mental gymnastics you play will change that either.
Money is a store of value. As a society we use money to buy things that are not money all the time because it is also a medium of exchange. Since you can't buy or sell lives, the next best thing logistically is money.
Let me ask you this. You see the market failure exists. So then what do you propose to fix it? Or do you just want to ignore it and let the buyers and sellers of bullets do their transaction while society pays for most of the costs? What happened to the Harm Principle?
And if the didn't exist that would be great, making them cost more through taxes for no real reason is not the same thing. It will change nothing just more money that the government will foolishly (imo) spend.
I don't agree with your connection between bullets and crime, frankly there is a far more of a connection between vehicles and crime.
I disagree, it is not a good idea to tax people for bullets over (imo) a fictitious "negative externality"
You think the drops in gun crime rates in the UK and elsewhere including mass shootings like CT after they cracked down on guns was a coincidence? Make it harder to get bullets, and you get less gun crime- no doubt about it. Pretty much common sense actually.
What about the 81% drop in violent crime in Kenasaw Gorgia due to being legally required to own a gun.
but you aren't talking about gun control, taxing bullets isn't the same thing. the UK doesn't have as much gun crime, mainly because their culture is not quite as violent as ours, cultural differences are three reason, most people would simply defy the law here in the states.
But it is not because they taxed bullets. Sorry I still don't see the connection.
The point is that with guns and bullets you have a higher rate of such crime. That is the externality. I am not asking to ban guns, but correct for that market failure in pricing by taxing bullets.
How is it not a market issue? I just explained why it is not only a market issue but could potentially be a market failure issue. You do buy and sell bullets after all, do you not? Or do you steal them?
Taxing bullets is not the only thing I want to tax. Anything that we can show has a notable negative externality and which can be taxed in a reasonable way and produce a potentially net positive outcome (after transaction costs, logistical costs, etc.), I am for taxing. Call me a supporter of the Pigou club, if you will.
Similar threads
