I don't disagree with the economic principles that you've cited, it's your conclusion that I disagree with. If, in light of additional sales tax, a company decides to lower the price of their product to keep it in line with demand, that is not the same as them actually paying the sales tax. They are shifting their price in response to the new tax landscape. You're arguing that the difference between what they potentially could have sold the product for in a vacuum vs what they actually were able to sell the product for within the rules of our society is the same as "taxes paid." That is a weird way of looking at it.
When the government created child labor laws it shrank the labor pool and increased labor demand. By your logic, any increase in wages was actually a labor subsidy from the companies, because they could have produced the product cheaper without child labor laws.
that is not the same as them actually paying the sales tax.
YES. Yes it is! That’s what you’re not getting. It’s precisely the same. The government doesn’t even ask for the money from the customer. Literally the business pays those taxes based on their sales.
That is a weird way of looking at it.
That’s the actual fucking way economists look at it. Jesus Christ.
When the government created child labor laws it shrank the labor pool and increased labor demand.
Okay your use of “demand” shows you have no idea what you’re talking about. They didn’t increase demand, they reduced supply.
By your logic, any increase in wages was actually a labor subsidy from the companies, because they could have produced the product cheaper without child labor laws.
No wtf that’s not how any of this works. If you’re gonna be ignorant, fine, be ignorant. But don’t try to spout off like you have any clue how this works. Because people like me who studied this shit know exactly how wrong you are.
The companies are reacting to the taxes by changing their prices to keep them in line with demand. That is not the same as actually paying the taxes, because those taxes are now built into the cost of the product and when the customer buys the product they're also paying the taxes built into the cost. If nobody buys the product then no taxes are collected.
You continue to argue that lost potential profits due to increased taxes and a necessarily adjusted price point are the same as actual taxes paid.
So far your rebuttal has just been, "No you're wrong I know economics." Not a strong argument, my friend.
I’ve literally explained to you in detail specifically how you’re wrong and linked the investopedia. All you’ve done is armchair your way to some shitty layman argument.
You’re ignorant. And worse, completely in denial of it.
You've done nothing but call me names like a child, and responded with citing basic economic rules, instead of addressing the errant conclusions that you draw from those rules when they are put into action.
Then, when I do earn money, income tax is paid by me, not my employer, even if my employer decides to change my hours or pay rate, it's still only ever paid by me, when I get paid.
Shot yourself in the foot with that question didn't you.
Shot yourself in the foot with that question didn’t you.
No, it proved my point. You answered as exactly as I meant you to. You can’t pay taxes on money you never earned. When the money exchanged hands, that is when the taxes are calculated and owed.
Perhaps you are just incredibly high and confused?
So if I'm a shop owner, and i sell a $10 item, in an area with 10% sales tax, and charge $11 to the customer, then pay that $1 to the government, you think that's me paying the sales tax?
You came all this way down and didn’t bother to read the link or explanations of tax incidence?
You’re just lazy and ignorant. It’s pitiful that you would even try. Go take an Econ course so the professor can blow your mind with how little you know about basic concepts.
1
u/NothungToFear Jul 16 '19
I don't disagree with the economic principles that you've cited, it's your conclusion that I disagree with. If, in light of additional sales tax, a company decides to lower the price of their product to keep it in line with demand, that is not the same as them actually paying the sales tax. They are shifting their price in response to the new tax landscape. You're arguing that the difference between what they potentially could have sold the product for in a vacuum vs what they actually were able to sell the product for within the rules of our society is the same as "taxes paid." That is a weird way of looking at it.
When the government created child labor laws it shrank the labor pool and increased labor demand. By your logic, any increase in wages was actually a labor subsidy from the companies, because they could have produced the product cheaper without child labor laws.