Adolf Bush, Free speech what is that?

No bussiness ever needs to raise prices because of a tax increase Rones, they like to use it as an excuse but its rarely ever a factor. That is unless the business is run by complete morons, or unless its a discount place lilke Walmart running on such low margins that everything makes a difference. If its Walmart do you even need to care? I mean all they do is drive down the price of labor, and increase umemployment anyway. Good for consumers but bad for employment.

Every Bussiness is different but a simple way to figure out a selling price is to use the 33% costing scheme.

This comes to:
33% Fixed costs
33% Variable Costs
33% Mark-up (or labor not sure about this one)

Anyway it comes to cost times 3, this however is not the end of it, you also need to consider to what the market will bear. Meaning if competitors are charging more then you will charge more also, and if they are charging consideralby less then you consider if you should even be selling the product at all.

Meaning taxes get covered and then some either way you look at it. No good bussiness short-changes themself so much that an increase in tax will effect them that much. Health insurance on the other hand is another story.
 
Darkdante said:
No bussiness ever needs to raise prices because of a tax increase Rones, they like to use it as an excuse but its rarely ever a factor. That is unless the business is run by complete morons, or unless its a discount place lilke Walmart running on such low margins that everything makes a difference. If its Walmart do you even need to care? I mean all they do is drive down the price of labor, and increase umemployment anyway. Good for consumers but bad for employment.

Every Bussiness is different but a simple way to figure out a selling price is to use the 33% costing scheme.

This comes to:
33% Fixed costs
33% Variable Costs
33% Mark-up (or labor not sure about this one)

Anyway it comes to cost times 3, this however is not the end of it, you also need to consider to what the market will bear. Meaning if competitors are charging more then you will charge more also, and if they are charging consideralby less then you consider if you should even be selling the product at all.

Meaning taxes get covered and then some either way you look at it. No good bussiness short-changes themself so much that an increase in tax will effect them that much. Health insurance on the other hand is another story.
Click to expand...

If you can't see the affect of taxes on an industry, take a look at an extreme case to illiustrate Rones' point, like for example the telephone industry of Jamaica.
 
With all the telecom lobbying here do you think we could have that kind of dream situation? Competition is a joke here, well.... at least where I live, with the monopolies currently in place what chance would new so-called competitors have?

None what-so-ever.

You can't have that without regulating the current monopolies so that new competition can come in. Taxes play a very little role in that case.

And then you see what telecom is trying to do now? They want to charge customers more for visiting sites like google microsoft yahoo etc.....

I agree though I'd like to see that here too, telephone and cable companies are teh crooks.

Actually the only reason that there is excessive taxation in telecom is because of the lobbying. Its just another way monopolies have to keep themselves being monopolies.

Unless of course your talking about tax breaks for new companies. But then you'd be buying into my tax-the-rich mentality now wouldn't you?
 
Last edited:
I don't buy into any of that bullshit, the phone industry in Jamaica is a joke because the result of all the taxes is that it's horrible for the consumers as they're the ones who take the hit, and it's horrible for the industry because the consumers are forced to use the phone less. It's basically a hindrance to the well being and progress of a whole country.
 
If you can't see how taxes on corporations and the rich affect the price level...there isn't much point in us continuing the conversation. That is one basic conerstone of macroeconomics. Its like saying the law of + doesn't work in math.

You slap a big tax on a corporation, they aren't going to let that just cut into their profit margins, be it a large or small margin. They will add it on to the final cost of the good. Their product will cost more which means the price level increases. When price level increases you get a surplus because suppliers are making more than is being demanded at that price (look at my 2nd chart). A new equilibrium is formed and the long term aggregate supply curve will shift left to match it. This is basic macroeconomics.

Edit: Here is an example of exactly what I was trying to describe in my last paragraph.
supply3.JPG

If you add a big tax, the price level will increase. When it does, the market finds a new equilibrium. Short run aggregate supply will move to match the new equilibrium point because it is producing a surplus for that price, and eventually long term supply will follow (not showen, but it is represented as a vertical line at the equilibrium price). A left shift in a supply curve is an economic contraction/recession. It means layoffs, business closings, and you can't buy as much as you use to of the product at the old price. Taxes and tax cuts have a large affect on the economy.
 
Last edited:
What you both fail to see is that it is normal to factor in 10 times the amount of normal tax into any costing formula.

This is why it doesn't matter much, its because its already in there.
 
Why would you need to increase a price when flucuating taxes are already factored into said price?

Simply you don't need to. Businesses don't run on the kind of small margins that you both are talking about that would require a price increase on a tax increase.

Its simply not fiscally responsible to do that, on top of that its pretty stupid.

edit: meaning prices get jacked up enough that you don't have to worry about taxes.
 
Darkdante said:
What you both fail to see is that it is normal to factor in 10 times the amount of normal tax into any costing formula.

This is why it doesn't matter much, its because its already in there.
Click to expand...
Competition in a capitalist system makes that impossible. Pepsi would love to see Coke try to get away with including a huge mark up in their price. Profit margins aren't that large.

You also have to consider products where consumers are highly elastic to price changes (that means they are very sensitive to a price change). For a highly elastic product, just raising the price by 10 cents can cut your quantity demanded by a third. Highly elastic products have very small profit margins because they are in such tight competition with competitors and because small reductions in cost can net them massive increases in sales.
 
You actually think it cost Coke $1.35 to produce 1 bottle of soda?? lol I dunno how much they sell bottle where you live.

Do you know how much money these companies give to stores simply for advertising their products?

Let me give you a hint: When we want "FREE" advertising we don't do it ourselves we let coke sponser us.

In a market such as soda "price fixing" comes to mind but then I wouldn't want to make that accusation public either.
 
Just as an example, I once read an article about how Dasani water, bottled from coke is priced at a 3166% mark-up.

I'd say thats pretty much tax proof wouldn't you?
 
Try telling the cigarette corporations to let the huge tax just cut into their profit margin and not raise their price. See how well that goes over.

Ok, let's say the corporation doesn't raise price and instead takes the hit to their profit margin. Profits go to a number of things: investment in R&D, expansion of production capabilities, increase in salaries and benefits for employees, dividends to stock holders, and chartiable donations. When taxes cut into the first two, it affects the supply curve, reducing its ability to move to the right and expand. While a corporation is unlikely to cut salaries unless it is desperate, the reduced profits could mean smaller pay raises and reduced benefits. This makes consumers have less money which causes a down and left shift in the aggregate demand curve, practically the same effect as if the supply curve shifted left.

You do realize you are basically making the claim that taxes on corporations don't affect the economy right? I think Adam Smith just rolled over in his grave. The money taxed has to come from some place, and that affects the economy negatively.
 
It doesn't to the extent that your trying to say it does. What your trying to say is if Bush gives Rich guys and corporations tax cuts then poor guys will see some beneift. Which you have so fair failed misrebly to prove.

Cigarette companies are poor examples for you to use and I would have thought you'd know that. The cigarette tax is a penalty imposed by the federal government for health reasons, thats why it is so insanely high. Normal taxes are not like this, nor would be seen as fair by anyone if this were normal taxes.
 
Darkdante said:
It doesn't to the extent that your trying to say it does. What your trying to say is if Bush gives Rich guys and corporations tax cuts then poor guys will see some beneift. Which you have so fair failed misrebly to prove.

Cigarette companies are poor examples for you to use and I would have thought you'd know that. The cigarette tax is a penalty imposed by the federal government for health reasons, thats why it is so insanely high. Normal taxes are not like this, nor would be seen as fair by anyone if this were normal taxes.
Click to expand...

The thing about cigarettes are they are taxed because the government is trying to discourage people from using them.

Note: Taxes...DISCOURAGES PEOPLE FROM BUYING A PRODUCT.

The fact remains, the price jack went to the consumer, not the company. Since they taxed the entire industry it was easy, because you and your competitors both have this tax. What's the point of loweirng the price?

Then you look at the actual cost of making cigarette, and you see how much profit they make off each pack, and you realize that yes, they could easily lower price to compensate even some for the tax, but they don't, and why?

Because there's no fucking reason to! The only way is if you taxed marlboro but nobody else for example. Then all you'd do is kill marlboro as all its competitors walk all over it. So usually when the government interferes, it does more damage than good. Now you can make the argument that doing damage to the cigarette industry is a good thing, BUT, it shows pretty solidly still the affects of taxes, and yes that will apply anywhere.
 
Darkdante said:
It doesn't to the extent that your trying to say it does. What your trying to say is if Bush gives Rich guys and corporations tax cuts then poor guys will see some beneift. Which you have so fair failed misrebly to prove.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that is the whole point. If the government levarges even a small tax of say 3% on a product that nets 50mil a year in raw sales, the government just took $1,500,000 out of the economy and out of the companies profits. It could be the company only had a profit margin of 10mil from those 50mil in sales. So the government just took 15% of their profits with a 3% tax. Companies do feel it, even small taxes.

Like I was describing earlier, this is especially important on highly elastic goods where a tiny increase in price can mean extreme loss of sales. These same products are also the ones that usually have a small profit margin, but make up for it in large, bulk sales. Taxes have a huge impact on the economy.

Edit: Let's try it like this.

If the amount of money lost from the business is insignifigant,
then anything the government could do with that amount of money is insignifigant.

If the government is able to do something signifigant with that amount of money,
then the money was of a signifigant amount to the business.

Either way you reason it, the conclusion is the same.
 
Last edited:
Wow. I get a couple of days off and this goes off in a completely different direction.

One thing tax cuts can't help is labor costs. More and more companies are going over seas because we haev a minimum wage. That's why everything is made in china and mexico.

The idea that taxing the rich less will make them spend more money actually seems to have some merit to it. But the idea that these rich people will put it all back into our economy seems absurd. The money that rich people will cumulativley spend on underage vietnamese prostitutes(male) this year alone is more than 100x my salary.

The fact that there are people that will make enough money this year to house, feed, and clothe a family of 5 for 20 years makes me think those people should give back to america in some way besides paying 10000 workers minimum wage.

Rones: After looking at the ethics you've applied in this discussion in comparison with others, I almost wonder if it's the same person posting.
 
Yeah, the subject matter changed a little and then ran pretty far with it.
Trippyhippy said:
Rones: After looking at the ethics you've applied in this discussion in comparison with others, I almost wonder if it's the same person posting.
Click to expand...
I have very different standards for economics and world issues. Less government involvement in the economy, the better. However, when it comes to genocide, civil war, and abusive governments, I am all for our government stepping in to help. If nothing else, it typically has economic benefits later as we have a new, better trading partner. Although, that is just one more side issue in this already derailed thread. :biggrin:
The money that rich people will cumulativley spend on underage vietnamese prostitutes(male) this year alone is more than 100x my salary.
Click to expand...
Someone is hiring male prosititues? :shok: I thought it went the other way.
 
Rones said:
I have very different standards for economics and world issues. Less government involvement in the economy, the better. However, when it comes to genocide, civil war, and abusive governments, I am all for our government stepping in to help. If nothing else, it typically has economic benefits later as we have a new, better trading partner. Although, that is just one more side issue in this already derailed thread. :biggrin:
Click to expand...

One thing people don't think about is what the little people go through when they are trying to raise a Family on 15000 a year.

Poverty, broken homes, domestic violence... I lived through it all, that was my life growing up. That little kid that the "nice policeman" goes to talk to after takin his daddy to jail.. that was me on more than one ocasion. People around the world have problems much worse than mine. But to be in that kind of enviornment in america and then to be sent to school to interact with the regular kids...

I suppose you can't understand if you've never been 10 years old wishing you were dead.
 
Firestreak said:
Trippy has a point, all the underaged male prostutes should be American, god damnit!
Click to expand...

They should be of age american prositutes in places where such things are legal.

Male/Female... That doesn't really make a difference. At least the warm hole would be taxed...:spiteful:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top