That seems backwards. If the externalities of manufacturing the product are going to hurt me, the manufacturer should be paying me a discount.

It doesn’t matter where a tax is actually applied - it’ll be split between the seller and purchaser regardless (the exact split depends on the elasticity of the market).

You get the benefit of the product, otherwise you wouldn't be paying for it. You should pay the rest of the world for the damage that was done to it for your benefit.

Ok, how about where the externalities of manufacturing the product hurts someone in Florida, and you in California are the one buying the product?

I think the manufacturer should be the one paying, not the customer.

The customer always pays, as all the manufacturers money comes from customers.

They wouldn't be manufacturing it if there were no demand for it.

Yeah but supply might dry up if manufacturers had to pay for damages out of their own pockets.

You mean economic growth is a mirage?

Well if it's going to take several trillion dollars to deal with effects of climate change, then however much money we thought we had saved by going with fossil fuels over cleaner but more expensive energy sources was actually overstated by several trillion dollars. I don't think that covers all economic growth though. And if a manufacturer pollutes the crap out of a river and gets people sick, I would deduct the costs borne by the people downstream from the profits of the company, at least when counting "economic growth". I suspect in terms of GDP it's a positive, because of the business created for doctors and lawyers.

The money raised should go to you, right?