Harry If the same rate of tax is imposed on all appropriate businesses,
they will
raise prices.
Thomas That's my point. If they raise prices but pay tax, then I won't
have to pay as much tax and will regain some control over my disposable
income. If they give me lower prices, but don't pay their fair share of
taxes, then my portion of disposable income is reduced.
Harry If a differential tax (some paying more than another) is imposed -
they
can't raise prices (some conditions can change that general rule).
Thomas In a complicated tax system such as we have in both countries, large
corporations with diverse product lines can often shift their tax burden
on to cash cow products allowing competitive lines not to have a tax
burden so they can compete against competitors, not on service, quality and
value of product but on their internal accounting ability. This may give
the consumer a lower price which will destroy a competitor but as soon as
they have market share they will raise their prices to make more profit.
Harry However, increased taxes are not paid by business, nor by the
consumer -
but that's a more sophisticated analysis.
Thomas A nice statement but I don't know what you are talking about.
Harry Keynes thought that monopolies don't matter - if they are taxed for
their
ill-gotten gains. You are essentially saying the same thing.
Thomas Well, I've never read Keynes in the original so I can't pretend to
understand his position on monopoly's. My argument was a rebuttal to the
neo con idea that business is taxed to much and their acceptance of the
status quo. (which they have created through ongoing lobbying) I was
trying to point out another logical way of looking at their argument that
the consumer always pays whether through higher prices or higher taxes.
Their argument is right but at the expense of the consumers choice. I
would argue that if they paid equally, prices may go up but in the long
run, the consumer benefits by having more disposable income, therefore
more choice.
Harry I would say that if someone earned his $100 million in a free market
servicing consumers, he should pay no tax. (Libertarianism)
Thomas I would say that if anyone earned $100 million, they have been
overcharging for their product, even if it is only a $1.00 overcharge for
100 million people.
Harry If he had a privilege that returned to him $100 million, he should be
taxed
100% of his $100 million. (neo-Keynesianism)
Thomas The use of the word privilege is a pretty elegant way to say
manipulate, con, deceive or monopolize.
Harry Best, however, is not to give the lucrative privilege in the first
place.(Georgism)
Thomas I guess George, you and I finally have found some common ground on
this issue.
But, that's too radical
Harry
Respectfully
Thomas Lunde
