Taxes on the rich already gone...

Just more inanity. Since you cannot present evidence, or be honest over your failure to present evidence, I see no purpose in wasting my time with you. Goodbye

 

You need to go somewhere and play with yourself as it is obvious you don't know how to play with others.

 

Minimal tax increases create minimal revenue. Maximum tax increases create maximum revenue (AKA PERCOLATE UP ECONOMICS)

 

And simply pass the cost off to the customer. Nice try though.

 

I'm struggling to make sense of what you're saying. Are you reducing the tax conversation to just excise taxes? Even then you're on a poor footing as you haven't factored in the price elasticity of demand

 

Nor have you factored in the elasticity of supply or the mobility of capital, either of which could allow capital to pass the tax on to the consumer or to labor which ever is easier. But then you likely don't know anymore about tax incidence than you do about the Laffer curve and business cycles. Whatever kind of intelligence you were going for, you missed.

 

Sorry chum, but its the elasticity of demand that matters (given the excise tax represents a shift in the supply). You did make me laugh mind you! Cheers

 

Actually both elasticity of supply and demand matters and the non-elasticity of demand too, as does the mobility of capital. The fact you discount anything but your own precious opinion again underscores your circular reasoning. I don't think you are a completely ignorant, but what's my opinion compared to that of thousands of others. You know just enough to make yourself look foolish when you get started on your diatribes.

 

You clearly haven't got a clue! The tax burden depends on the elasticity of demand. The excise tax shifts the supply curve leftwards, with the increase in price then reflecting a movement along the demand curve.

 

Your bringing excise tax into the mix was arbitrary and not in relation to the post to which you responded.

If you believe the tax burden rests solely with the elasticity of demand, you know even less about economics than I had previously given you credit....which was not much to be sure. I presume from your answer that you don't believe that when supply is insufficient to meet demand (elasticity of supply) the cost of taxes cannot be passed on to the consumer? The mere fact even if, as you say, "excise tax shifts the supply curve leftwards, with the increase in price then reflecting a movement along the demand curve," does not tell the whole story about taxes in general. As well the discussion has not been all about excise taxes. The move to discussing tax incidence presumes that now we are talking about corporate taxes. And corporate taxes can be shifted from capital to the consumer or to labor or paid by capital dependent on the elasticities of supply or demand or the lack of elasticity in demand. Recognizing that all costs are involved, the cost of Corporate taxation can be passed on to labor.

Please try to stay within the parameters of the immediate discussion thread.

 

Trying to hide again? I referred to excise taxes from the beginning. It wouldn't make sense to refer to other taxes in terms of tax burdens.

I assumed that you did not understand supply & demand. My assumption has been proved correct. God bless!

Its a basic analysis into tax burdens and how a corporation- when confronted with an effective supply shift- are able to change price. That price effects are dependent on the slope of the demand curve is just bleedin obvious!

If it doesn't impact on the profit maximisation decision (i.e. MR=MC), there is no impact on price.

Go ahead and show that! I hope you're going to do a better job that your ridiculous comments over the laffer curve.

I don't have high hopes mind you!

 

You did bring it up, but it wasn't the discussion.

I do understand supply and demand an that is why I say that when supply is elastic (less than demand) taxes can be passed on to the consumer.

Yep! and because the corporation is able to change prices such that consumers pay capital's tax burden is where you screwed up.

It is obvious that when capital collects the tax and chooses to pass it on either to the consumer or to labor there is no impact. You need to keep your stories straight because you have admitted here that it is not only about the elasticity of demand that determines tax incidence.

Considering that my discussion about the Laffer Curve was far superior to yours I don't consider that jab very relevant. I'd try to see things from your point of view, but I can't seem to get my head that far up your excremental orifice.

 

The other fellow brought up price rises. By definition that shifts the analysis to very specific types of tax. A profit tax, for example, would have no impact on price.

Given your ridiculous comment over the elasticity of supply determining tax burden, you clearly have a distorted view over your knowledge levels.

Again, its the demand curve that determines how taxes can be passed on. There's no debate in it! Try, for example, passing on a tax with a perfectly elastic demand curve.

Again, you're clueless! The only way you could dispute my analysis is to reject orthodox supply and demand, going instead for a cost-plus pricing approach. Even then, its just the mechanics that change. A tax only impacts on price if costs are directly effected (e.g. some form of labour insurance). A profit tax would again have no impact on price.

You continue to show no coherency, failing to respond to the quote. Think how a profit tax impacts on the profit maximisation level of output and therefore chosen price (Hint: it doesn't impact on the output level and therefore, as shown by demand, price remains constant)

More silliness on your behalf! The fellow was referring to price rises. That necessarily must refer to excise taxes (and elasticity of demand). Other taxes, such as a profit tax, will have zero effect on price.

I did laugh at this. The dissonance is at extraordinary levels! Your "laffer curve is related to the business cycle but, because it is so logical, there isn't actually any evidence to show it" argument was low brow, nothing more.

And of course you dodged! You couldn't show how a corporate tax is passed on to labour

 

So your circular reasoning finally got you to recognize that taxes on a corporation can cause prices to rise which means simply that the taxes are passed on to the consumer.

Which is exactly opposite of what you said above. (your supply shift comment).

Two contradictory comments in one post. "Shift in supply" (elasticity of supply) allows tax to be passed on. I have yet to see anyone say that a tax can be passed on to the consumer if there is a perfectly elastic demand curve. You just made that up.

Not necessarily! A corporate tax on profit can be recouped from the consumer or from labor depending on the circumstances, maybe not at the moment of sale, but certainly when that cost is added to the prices of future sales.

It is interesting that you insert different parameters to support your assertions.

Since excise tends to be paid at the point of sale, it has an impact on price.

I am not familiar with the Laffer discussion, but was it anything like your typical circular reasoning?

Maybe he didn't, but let me give you an example of corporate taxation being passed on to labor. I presume you do recognize that tax is a "cost" of doing business. (I'm not sure what you recognize as you seem to be less than knowledgeable of economics) When tax increases the total cost of doing business beyond that which capital is willing to pay, and assuming (as has been the case many times over the years) capital is mobile, the company can simply move to take advantage of a better lower cost (including taxes) location. IOW, labor loses and effectively pays the tax.

But gosh, don't let that stop you, it appears you haven't let your ignorance stop you before.

 

Crikey, why do you homogenous folk require to be told things so many times? It is the excise tax which is passed on to the consumer. That is dependent on the price elasticity of demand.

Why do you homogeneous fellows struggle with supply and demand? Its only the elasticity of demand that matters (its the movement along the demand curve that determines how much of the tax is paid by the consumer and how much is paid by the firm)

It was to demonstrate the importance of elasticity of demand. For the consumer to experience all of the burden we'd actually need perfectly inelastic demand.

You homogenous fellows do struggle so! The future price will also be determined by demand and profit maximisation criteria.

None of you homogeneous fellows are.

This is just an inane attempt to refer to opportunity costs. It does not refer to how the burden is paid by labour. Crikey, socks aren't very good at economics!

 

That is true. But that is not the only time the tax gets passed on. Why do you have to be told so many times?

In this discussion you are the only one having problems with supply and demand.

So at least you recognize that when demand is not elastic the consumer does pay the tax.

I don't think anyone has discussed absolute situations yet, but when the tax is added at the sales level like excise, fuel, tobacco etc taxes the consumer does pay the total tax.

 

So far I've just had to deal with the homogeneity in error! Why don't you refer to one example where the elasticity of supply is crucial for the tax burden? Please make sure you provide details! I didn't bother with the rest of your post as I don't want to give you a dodge excuse!

 

I have never dodged a post from you. You aren't smart enough to make me even want to. BTW, I gave you an example of price elasticity of supply passing taxes on to the consumer. But you are correct about 1 thing, you deal in a whole lot of error.

 

Why don't you refer to one example where the elasticity of supply is crucial for the tax burden? Please make sure you provide details!

 

I gave you one in #91 above. But regardless it is obvious you are not sufficiently versed in economics for me to waste my time with you anymore.

You may want to read this definition in investopedia: Definition of 'Tax Incidence'
An economic term for the division of a tax burden between buyers and sellers. Tax incidence is related to the price elasticity of supply and demand. When supply is more elastic than demand, the tax burden falls on the buyers. If demand is more elastic than supply, producers will bear the cost of the tax.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax_incidence.asp#ixzz2LIDOq3F4

 

That was drivel! Conclusion: you can't.

Perhaps the sock will have more luck!

Chortle, chortle, that's only quantifying what we mean by elasticity of demand. Since you need first principles, here you go: http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Competitive_markets/Tax_incidence.html

 

What sock?

http://www.kc.frb.org/Publicat/RegionalRWP/RRWP07-01.pdf High rates of corporate taxation reduce corporate investment and thereby depress local wages. Using cross-country data I estimate that a ten percentage point increase in the corporate tax rate of high-income countries reduces mean annual gross wages by seven percent. The results do not support the common belief that the burden of corporate taxes falls most heavily on skilled labor; corporate taxation appears to reduce the wages of low-skill and high-skill workers to the same degree. The incidence of the corporate tax in the form of reduced wages suggests that taxing labor instead of taxing corporations could be Pareto-improving.

It is well-known that those responsible for remitting taxes are not always those who bear the burden of the tax. Early economic literature focuses on the incidence of taxes in a closed economy, and Harberger (1962) estimates that capital, both corporate and non-corporate, bears
the entire burden of the corporate tax in a closed economy. He shows that this creates an inefficient allocation of capital between the corporate and non-corporate sectors. Most corporate capital is owned by the wealthy but some non-corporate capital is owned by the middle class, and thus, corporate taxation was initially seen as a way to increase the progressivity of the tax system even though the tax was slightly less progressive than originally believed.

As trade barriers were removed over time, volumes of trade and capital flows rose, requiring a new look at the incidence of taxes-- one that focuses on the impact of openness. Diamond and Mirrlees (1971) demonstrate that in a small open economy, any source-based
capital tax is inefficient. Their theory predicts that as the economy becomes open, capital becomes more mobile, and thus the price of capital is fixed at the world return. Therefore, if a country places a tax on capital, capital will flee to obtain the higher after-tax world rate of return. Capital will continue to move abroad until the marginal productivity of capital at home is driven up to the point where the after-tax return to capital equals the world return. This decrease in capital results in a lower marginal productivity of labor and thereby, if capital is perfectly mobile, labor bears the entire burden of a capital tax. Harberger (1995) also revisits the incidence of corporate taxation in an open economy finding that the burden of a corporate tax more than fully shifts to labor. He estimates that the burden on labor may be 2 to 2.5 times as large as the corporate tax revenue raised. As Harberger points out, the openness of a country remains a
crucial factor in analyzing the incidence of a corporate tax.

BTW, in case you forgot everything you THINK you knew about economics, if there is perfect elasticity of supply the supplier can change price to compensate immediately for any corporate tax being levied. Varying degrees of supply elasticity accounts for various degrees of the ability to adjust price to compensate for corporate tax.

It is also dependent on the type of tax. For example, property taxes are automatically added to overall costs and passed on to the consumer. As you also noted, excise tax is passed on at the time of consumption.

You may not like the example, but Apple has maintained an almost perfect elasticity of the price of supply thus always charging for anticipated tax at the time of sale.

 

Shhh, let's not scare him away!

Another fail! That isn't a reference to passing on the burden. That is a reference to potential negative effect on the product market, ensuring then reduction in wages (given, according to demand theory, wages are determined by the marginal physical productivity of labour multipled by the marginal revenue)

Again, you only show you don't know what you're talking about!

 

I guess Felix, James R. Hines Jr., Joel Slemrod, Dan Silverman, Clemens Sialm, who did the study from which I extracted that information don't know as much as you, your highness.

In other words, when it comes to economics you are narrow minded and beat up with the dumbass stick. You should have copied the entire para when quoting it back to me.

High rates of corporate taxation reduce corporate investment and thereby depress local
wages. Using cross-country data I estimate that a ten percentage point increase in the corporate
tax rate of high-income countries reduces mean annual gross wages by seven percent. The results
do not support the common belief that the burden of corporate taxes falls most heavily on skilled
labor; corporate taxation appears to reduce the wages of low-skill and high-skill workers to the
same degree. The incidence of the corporate tax in the form of reduced wages suggests that
taxing labor instead of taxing corporations could be Pareto-improving.

Or, As trade barriers were removed over time, volumes of trade and capital flows rose,
requiring a new look at the incidence of taxes-- one that focuses on the impact of openness.
Diamond and Mirrlees (1971) demonstrate that in a small open economy, any source-based
capital tax is inefficient. Their theory predicts that as the economy becomes open, capital
becomes more mobile, and thus the price of capital is fixed at the world return. Therefore, if a
country places a tax on capital, capital will flee to obtain the higher after-tax world rate of return.

​

 

The problem is that, perhaps not deliberately (given it reflects knowledge deficiency, you're misrepresenting the article. It is not about burden sharing; it is about the potential negative effects of tax on product markets and therefore labour markets. You again show that you do not understand demand!

I'm off. Thanks for the laugh mind you. I look forward to your next crass error.