Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control Reform Activism

DanTex

(20,709 posts)

7. The purpose of collecting it is to discourage harmful activities and compensate society.

Reply to LiberalFighter (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:23 PM

Mar 2013

It is the same principle as taxing pollution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax

The "statistical value of human life" is unpleasant-sounding but necessary concept in certain policy areas. For example, the lower the speed limit, the less people that get killed. So, in order to determine the ideal speed limit, you need to somehow be able weigh the economic benefits of faster transportation and shipping, versus the loss of human life. (there are other considerations like pollution, etc., but you get the idea).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

15 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How much should firearms be taxed? [View all] DanTex Mar 2013 OP

I'm not a gun owner LiberalFighter Mar 2013 #1

The purpose of collecting it is to discourage harmful activities and compensate society. DanTex Mar 2013 #7

That is a wide range, but $500/yr seems appropriate if the data is correct. nt. Warren Stupidity Mar 2013 #2

At what point would a tax discriminate against the poor? guardian Mar 2013 #13

This message was self-deleted by its author friendly_iconoclast Mar 2013 #14

if a gun were a necessity you might have a point. Warren Stupidity Mar 2013 #15

I wonder whether the manufacturers pay a tax Kingofalldems Mar 2013 #3

26 U.S.C. CHAPTER 32; 27 C.F.R. PART 53 slackmaster Mar 2013 #4

Good. Kingofalldems Mar 2013 #5

With 10% on each firearm and 11% on each round of ammunition, we're probably pretty close already slackmaster Mar 2013 #6

It's in the ballpark at least. DanTex Mar 2013 #8

Over the life of a firearm, many owners spend far more on ammo than they paid for the weapon. slackmaster Mar 2013 #9

Let's say 1000 rounds per year. DanTex Mar 2013 #10

Until it makes them cry and give up their guns in economics fueled despair. ellisonz Mar 2013 #11

And that is why it will not happen- you propose "a crippling tax of general applicability" friendly_iconoclast Mar 2013 #12