People of the ACT should not be the least concerned that they will be paying, through the increased Medicare levy, about $10 million towards the gun-resumption fund but far less than that … perhaps only $3 million … will be spent in the ACT compensating owners of resumed guns.
People in the ACT, and indeed the whole Australia should take a national perspective on the matter. Because the new gun laws are to be uniform nationwide, and because the compensation package is to be financed by a nationwide levy, the flow of funds has to be viewed nationally with the levy coming in greater portion from where the most income is earned and the compensation going in greater portion to where the most guns are.
The argument about the ACT paying too much could also be made across the rural-city divide. Rural areas have lower per-capita incomes and are likely therefore to pay less in levy. But they have more guns and will receive more compensation. It does not matter.
If anything, it might help some of the arguments coming from rural areas about city people imposing their will on guns that they know nothing about. At least the city people will have to put their money where their mouth is and pay for the scheme that they think will give them greater security.
Virtually any area of fiscal endeavour in Australia will give rise to inequalities of revenue-raising and benefit raising; but that does not mean it is inequitable. The inequalities of revenue and benefits ultimately result in greater equity across the nation; that is the nature of federation.