How much should firearms be taxed?

[DanTex]

Most people agree that, since firearms ownership has a negative externality in the form of gun violence, it should be taxed, similar to fuel that pollutes the environment. One question is how high the tax should be.

Economically speaking, the tax should equal the marginal cost on society. So if each additional gun sold results in $100 dollars of damage to society, then the tax should be $100 per gun.

A few years ago, some social scientists did a study that tried to compute the marginal cost of gun ownership, and their estimates were in the range of $100 to $1800 annually for each gun-owning household. Part of the reason for the wide range is that the estimate depends on the statistical value of human life. Basically, the study found that, on average, the number of homicides in a county increases by between 1 and 3 for every additional 10,000 gun owning households. They used a range of between $1 and $6 million for the social loss associated with each additional homicide to arrive at the total.

This paper provides new estimates of the effect of household gun prevalence on homicide rates,
and infers the marginal external cost of handgun ownership. The estimates utilize a superior proxy
for gun prevalence, the percentage of suicides committed with a gun, which we validate. Using
county- and state-level panels for 20 years, we estimate the elasticity of homicide with respect to gun
prevalence as between +0.1 and + 0.3. All of the effect of gun prevalence is on gun homicide rates.
Under certain reasonable assumptions, the average annual marginal social cost of household gun
ownership is in the range $100 to $1800.

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf

[LiberalFighter]

1. I'm not a gun owner

Not sure if that would be the best method. Also, basing it on the value of human life would also require dispersing the monies to those that lost someone. I don't believe the money would be used for that purpose though. So if the taxes will not go to them then what is the point of collecting it?

I do think there should be some sort of tax but doesn't need to be that high. And to use it for PSAs and other safety purposes. Maybe a $10 or $20 tax per firearm annually. And all firearms have to be registered so the right tax is collected. If someone's firearm is stolen they need to report it to the police so they don't get taxed. If they sell it there needs to be paperwork. If someone claims it was stolen and turns out they sold it in the black market they would be prosecuted.

I would think that even a low tax would weed out some that have a cache of firearms that fill up their basement and encourage them to reduce what they have.

[DanTex]

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

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

[Warren Stupidity]

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

[guardian]

13. At what point would a tax discriminate against the poor?

The 1%ters won't care if the tax is $500/year or $5000/year. But to a single mom, a bus driver, or teacher $500/year is prohibitive. Would you be infavor of a progressive tax based on income?

[Warren Stupidity]

15. if a gun were a necessity you might have a point.

So I could certainly see where an exemption for actual need based gun ownership, for example a person who is really living off the land and not merely engaged in recreational hunting, would be appropriate.

[Kingofalldems]

3. I wonder whether the manufacturers pay a tax

And if that is possible it certainly would be a good start.

[slackmaster]

4. 26 U.S.C. CHAPTER 32; 27 C.F.R. PART 53

http://www.ttb.gov/firearms/reference_guide.shtml

[Kingofalldems]

5. Good.

Compute the cost of guns to society and add that cost to the manufacturers for each weapon produced. Ditto for ammunition.

[slackmaster]

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

[DanTex]

8. It's in the ballpark at least.

10% on each gun comes out to about $50 per gun, so we're getting pretty close to the $100-per-gun-owning-household lower estimate from the study. Of course, the values in the study are per year, but still, we are not too far off. How much does the average gun owner spend on ammo per year?

On the other hand, that study was done using data from 1980-2000, a time when homicide rates were higher than they are now, so there's a pretty good chance that, at present, the effect is weaker than back then.

[slackmaster]

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

Typical lifetime of a modern firearm that gets properly maintained is many tens of thousands of rounds. With replacement of worn parts they can last much longer. Of course some people buy a gun and never shoot it.

[DanTex]

10. Let's say 1000 rounds per year.

That's about 100 a month, not that much, but also not that little. At 25 cents per round, that would come out to $250 per year, which would mean $25 in taxes per year. Combined with the gun tax, we're in the ballpark.

[ellisonz]

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

Save us the trouble of prying them from their cold dead hands.

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. And that is why it will not happen- you propose "a crippling tax of general applicability"

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/575/

U.S. Supreme Court
Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Comm'r, 460 U.S. 575 (1983)

Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v.

Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue

No. 81-1839

Argued January 12, 1983

Decided March 29, 1983

460 U.S. 575

Syllabus

While exempting periodic publications from its general sales and use tax, Minnesota imposes a "use tax" on the cost of paper and ink products consumed in the production of such a publication, but exempts the first $100,000 worth of paper and ink consumed in any calendar year. Appellant newspaper publisher brought an action seeking a refund of the ink and paper use taxes it had paid during certain years, contending that the tax violates, inter alia, the guarantee of the freedom of the press in the First Amendment. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the tax.

Held: The tax in question violates the First Amendment. Pp. 460 U. S. 579-593...


(b) But by creating the special use tax, which is without parallel in the State's tax scheme, Minnesota has singled out the press for special treatment. When a State so singles out the press, the political constraints that prevent a legislature from imposing crippling taxes of general applicability are weakened, and the threat of burdensome taxes becomes acute. That threat can operate as effectively as a censor to check critical comment by the press, thus undercutting the basic assumption of our political system that the press will often serve as an important restraint on government. Moreover, differential treatment, unless justified by some special characteristic of the press, suggests that the goal of the regulation is not unrelated to suppression of expression, and such goal is presumptively unconstitutional. Differential treatment of the press, then, places such a burden on the interests protected by the First Amendment that such treatment cannot be countenanced unless the State asserts a counterbalancing interest of compelling importance that it cannot achieve without differential taxation. Pp. 460 U. S. 581-585.

Since you (and others) have often admitted that you'd like "crippling taxes" on guns, the above decision would apply.
Of course, you can avoid the whole question by getting the Second Amendment repealed first.