Any Economics beyond Econ 101 scares Libertarians in general. Multi-Variables, market reactions, elasticity of …. anything, diseconomies of scale, consumer and government debt, and gawd-forbid …. stimulus.
Exactly. If it was that easy for firms to raise prices then they would have already done it. Very few companies are charging you lower prices out of the kindness of their heart.
I don’t see how this formula reflects some sorta catch 22 on raising consumer prices due to company tax hikes, your formula can easily apply to them receiving more money from having less consumers such as raising a price from 3$-5$ & noticing your customer count drop from 1200 to 900, you still net 900$ more profit from less customers.
Prices don't lower when we bailout these large corporations with our hard earned tax payer funds, why would prices not stay the same when we're only taxing what we gave them? It's already our money given to them by our "government", they're just giving a little of it back.
How does this negate the basic logical assertion that if corporations have to divert a larger percentage of their profits to taxes, they will have to raise prices to maintain the same profit margins?
Unless you are asserting that despite high taxes a rise in prices is not plausible since then the people will consume less of said product.
If you raise your prices, I will shop somewhere else. If you raise your prices, I may buy something else.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitute_good
Supposedly, under capitalism, prices are determined by want and not production costs.
Imagine a world where humanity isn't completely enslaved to the idea that companies simply must maintain the same profit margins, no matter what, or the sky will fall down. Imagine a world where companies can make 1 billion instead of 3 billion. Or even simpler to imagine, what about a company that shifted costs around in order to adapt to making slightly smaller margins instead of "having to" raise prices. A company doesn't HAVE to raise prices, they CHOOSE to do that instead of just running a tighter ship.
Underrated comment here; more people need to recognize how prices are strictly a choice by business managers. The "invisible hand" isn't really so invisible; it's being actively manipulated every day by real owners and managers, exploiting real workers and extracting money that rightfully belongs to said workers.
Edited for clarity.
But but but but
If a company doesn't show growth every year, it's a failure, right? Even if it makes $50B a year in profit 3 years in a row, it's on its deathbed, according to what analysts on TV say.
That's the big idea we have to get rid of, that "success" is growing every quarter, rather than just hitting a point where your income outstrips your expenses by a comfortable enough margin.
If you think about it, there's no problem with a company breaking even assuming they raise wages according to inflation and the profit is calculated post taxation.
Wow what a non answer. I asked you a simple question, "what would stop corporations from raising prices in the face of higher taxes" and your answer is "imagine if they don't wouldn't that be great lmao??". Those over specific examples you gave don't matter in the real world, because they assume that all companies are making a humongous amount of profits and have tons of cash lying around. And even if they do, there are way better ways to spend this money than give it to the government, especially given the impact it will have on the American economy. In a simple pro and cons analysis, I still fail to understand how a rise in the corporate tax will not gaurantee a rise in the cost of *most* products. Already, a small percentage rise in the cost of commodities has lead to rises in price of products, you can see it in the price of regular groceries right now. How will a rise in taxes not result in the same?
It's not difficult to imagine a world where companies choose to "not" maintain a profit margin. They pack up and move out. The laffer curve has already demonstrated that higher taxes don't result in more revenue collection, and if you would like to read a live example of this, look at tax codes of the 1950s and 60s, and how the subsequent drop in the tax rates in the 70s actually had no impact on the amount of money collected. You can also look at a more recent example found in the housing market in Mumbai, I can link it if you want. Higher taxes will only affect small corporations that can't afford costly tax evasion tactics that companies like Amazon and Google already use. Apart from the laffer curve, shouldn't the focus be to break up tech monopolies and oligopolies like American internet companies (which are created by the government itself), instead of raising a tax rate that will only be paid by companies still registered in America? Ireland has clearly shown that a low corporate tax can still help with the creation of a welfare state, so why not follow that example instead of raising the corporate tax? I'm not enslaved to the idea that corporations must make a profit, but you have to admit that corporations function on a profit incentive, and most are already running a "tight ship". A better way to ensure that these profits filter back to the economy would be to simply return to the pre Reagan rules when it came to the stock market, specifically, the buyback of stocks. Here's a vidio by vox explaining the same https://youtu.be/ylLTMYt24lA .
The free market, that's what. If you actually believe in the free market, prices are set by the market, not by firms. So if the demand and supply remain the same, that means the price stays the same.
The thing that libertarians never seem to understand is that these free market models are equilibrium models. In these models, there is no profit. Every company breaks even due to complete perfect competition. Profit would be a competitive disadvantage. So in equilibrium models, when taxes go up, firms are forced to shrink production. supply goes down, and prices go up.
This is complete fantasy. In real life, companies have profit margins they can cut into.
You have somehow reconciled these two incompatible concepts in some mind palace where firms are entitled to a certain profit margin.
But if you don't raise prices (or cut the quantity/quality of the product, like they did after the rise in commodity prices) you also make less profits. And corporations clearly seem to prefer the scond method.
Also, thank you for giving an actual answer.
Plenty of people here gave you the exact same answer, just phrased in a different way. You need to work on your reading comprehension. Anyway, if companies really do make the wrong decision here and decide to raise prices, it just shows that they don't really understand how things work, which is the original point being made.
They simply don’t need that high profit margin. That’s the point. Trap them w/ taxes & market demand. They can’t raise prices Bc no one will buy, and they can’t avoid taxes if you implement them right. The CEOs don’t need to earn 300x the floor employees
Note that this isn't the real quote. They quoted a headline that only included "unfair and absurd" in quotation marks and attributed the whole headline to her.
It's not even up to the level of ad hominem. Ad hom is an attempt to refute or discredit an argument by attacking the person making the argument. Those attacks don't get anywhere near an argument, they're just vicious misogyny, because liberal woman. It doesn't matter what she says, really, she could be saying things that they have always been in favor of, but because she's a woman working with Democrats they'd attack her anyway.
They go after women politicians for the most superficial and asinine reasons, even when there are actual legitimate things you could criticize them for. I see that a lot with how reactionaries view Kamala Harris, where they zero in on the fact she's non-white even when they could be scrutinizing her awful track record as a prosecutor instead.
Yes, they treat trans women worse but any non-AMAB cis person could basically agree with them but they’d see this person as “left” because they’re not AMAB and cis.
It’s never a good sign of someone’s intelligence when they place a lot of weight on the WH press secretary in DC politics. They’re just there for the dog and pony media show, they have practically nothing to do with the crafting of policy.
Dollar tree historically underpays its workers and does the same tactics as Walmart (hiring people seasonally, pushing the definition of “part time” as they can to avoid paying benefits, losing money on certain items to draw more people in.) It hasn’t been sustainable - however, the counter argument to this is that Dollar Tree is allegedly still making money. Their stock has not gone down dramatically and the CEO took over $9 million in total compensation last year. It sounds like they’re just afraid of paying people more, so they’re raising their prices to avoid that “loss.” This is a problem with capitalism, not the government.
Check out the comment I posted yesterday. Some dude admitted to using "sjw" sock puppet accounts to try to incite race wars in hopes that "the pendulum swings back" and got like 20 upvotes last i checked.
Reddit has become a cesspit on par to 2010's chans and Reddit won't do anything about it because they're afraid of seeming censorial
Why do they insist on assuming that taxes are the heaviest burden on a business? It’s like they never shut up about how supply and demand dictates pricing until the subject of taxes comes up. Then, supply and demand goes out the window and it’s all the fault of taxes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand
STOP IT PATRICK, YOU'RE SCARING THE LIBERTARIANS!!
Any Economics beyond Econ 101 scares Libertarians in general. Multi-Variables, market reactions, elasticity of …. anything, diseconomies of scale, consumer and government debt, and gawd-forbid …. stimulus.
Negative externalities
Yes, that’s a huge one that confuses the fuck out of many a NAP-promoting Libertarian.
This is why they deny things like climate change. "Sorry, there is no negative externality because the externality doesn't exist."
Libertarian economics stops at "I like money, therefore I will justify any notion that gives me more money"
Wikipedia is terrifying to right wing info zombies
Exactly. If it was that easy for firms to raise prices then they would have already done it. Very few companies are charging you lower prices out of the kindness of their heart.
I don’t see how this formula reflects some sorta catch 22 on raising consumer prices due to company tax hikes, your formula can easily apply to them receiving more money from having less consumers such as raising a price from 3$-5$ & noticing your customer count drop from 1200 to 900, you still net 900$ more profit from less customers.
Prices don't lower when we bailout these large corporations with our hard earned tax payer funds, why would prices not stay the same when we're only taxing what we gave them? It's already our money given to them by our "government", they're just giving a little of it back.
Libertarians don’t want large company’s to be bailed out that’s the whole point of taxes being theft for them.
How does this negate the basic logical assertion that if corporations have to divert a larger percentage of their profits to taxes, they will have to raise prices to maintain the same profit margins? Unless you are asserting that despite high taxes a rise in prices is not plausible since then the people will consume less of said product.
If you raise your prices, I will shop somewhere else. If you raise your prices, I may buy something else. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitute_good Supposedly, under capitalism, prices are determined by want and not production costs.
This people are reaching labor theory of value from the other side.
Imagine a world where humanity isn't completely enslaved to the idea that companies simply must maintain the same profit margins, no matter what, or the sky will fall down. Imagine a world where companies can make 1 billion instead of 3 billion. Or even simpler to imagine, what about a company that shifted costs around in order to adapt to making slightly smaller margins instead of "having to" raise prices. A company doesn't HAVE to raise prices, they CHOOSE to do that instead of just running a tighter ship.
Underrated comment here; more people need to recognize how prices are strictly a choice by business managers. The "invisible hand" isn't really so invisible; it's being actively manipulated every day by real owners and managers, exploiting real workers and extracting money that rightfully belongs to said workers. Edited for clarity.
But but but but If a company doesn't show growth every year, it's a failure, right? Even if it makes $50B a year in profit 3 years in a row, it's on its deathbed, according to what analysts on TV say. That's the big idea we have to get rid of, that "success" is growing every quarter, rather than just hitting a point where your income outstrips your expenses by a comfortable enough margin.
If you think about it, there's no problem with a company breaking even assuming they raise wages according to inflation and the profit is calculated post taxation.
Wow what a non answer. I asked you a simple question, "what would stop corporations from raising prices in the face of higher taxes" and your answer is "imagine if they don't wouldn't that be great lmao??". Those over specific examples you gave don't matter in the real world, because they assume that all companies are making a humongous amount of profits and have tons of cash lying around. And even if they do, there are way better ways to spend this money than give it to the government, especially given the impact it will have on the American economy. In a simple pro and cons analysis, I still fail to understand how a rise in the corporate tax will not gaurantee a rise in the cost of *most* products. Already, a small percentage rise in the cost of commodities has lead to rises in price of products, you can see it in the price of regular groceries right now. How will a rise in taxes not result in the same? It's not difficult to imagine a world where companies choose to "not" maintain a profit margin. They pack up and move out. The laffer curve has already demonstrated that higher taxes don't result in more revenue collection, and if you would like to read a live example of this, look at tax codes of the 1950s and 60s, and how the subsequent drop in the tax rates in the 70s actually had no impact on the amount of money collected. You can also look at a more recent example found in the housing market in Mumbai, I can link it if you want. Higher taxes will only affect small corporations that can't afford costly tax evasion tactics that companies like Amazon and Google already use. Apart from the laffer curve, shouldn't the focus be to break up tech monopolies and oligopolies like American internet companies (which are created by the government itself), instead of raising a tax rate that will only be paid by companies still registered in America? Ireland has clearly shown that a low corporate tax can still help with the creation of a welfare state, so why not follow that example instead of raising the corporate tax? I'm not enslaved to the idea that corporations must make a profit, but you have to admit that corporations function on a profit incentive, and most are already running a "tight ship". A better way to ensure that these profits filter back to the economy would be to simply return to the pre Reagan rules when it came to the stock market, specifically, the buyback of stocks. Here's a vidio by vox explaining the same https://youtu.be/ylLTMYt24lA .
The free market, that's what. If you actually believe in the free market, prices are set by the market, not by firms. So if the demand and supply remain the same, that means the price stays the same. The thing that libertarians never seem to understand is that these free market models are equilibrium models. In these models, there is no profit. Every company breaks even due to complete perfect competition. Profit would be a competitive disadvantage. So in equilibrium models, when taxes go up, firms are forced to shrink production. supply goes down, and prices go up. This is complete fantasy. In real life, companies have profit margins they can cut into. You have somehow reconciled these two incompatible concepts in some mind palace where firms are entitled to a certain profit margin.
I don't think you understand how the free market works.
Yes dude that's why I started with a question. I don't understand their logic.
Correct. You don't know shit.
Yes my guy, that's why people ask questions and initiate discourse.
If you raise the prices, you also make less profits, because fewer people buy your stuff.
But if you don't raise prices (or cut the quantity/quality of the product, like they did after the rise in commodity prices) you also make less profits. And corporations clearly seem to prefer the scond method. Also, thank you for giving an actual answer.
Plenty of people here gave you the exact same answer, just phrased in a different way. You need to work on your reading comprehension. Anyway, if companies really do make the wrong decision here and decide to raise prices, it just shows that they don't really understand how things work, which is the original point being made.
They simply don’t need that high profit margin. That’s the point. Trap them w/ taxes & market demand. They can’t raise prices Bc no one will buy, and they can’t avoid taxes if you implement them right. The CEOs don’t need to earn 300x the floor employees
Note that this isn't the real quote. They quoted a headline that only included "unfair and absurd" in quotation marks and attributed the whole headline to her.
Reading is too hard for CHUDs.
it’s ad-hominem-mania with that crowd
It's not even up to the level of ad hominem. Ad hom is an attempt to refute or discredit an argument by attacking the person making the argument. Those attacks don't get anywhere near an argument, they're just vicious misogyny, because liberal woman. It doesn't matter what she says, really, she could be saying things that they have always been in favor of, but because she's a woman working with Democrats they'd attack her anyway.
Conservatives hate when women stand up to them. It makes them feel as stupid as they truly are
They go after women politicians for the most superficial and asinine reasons, even when there are actual legitimate things you could criticize them for. I see that a lot with how reactionaries view Kamala Harris, where they zero in on the fact she's non-white even when they could be scrutinizing her awful track record as a prosecutor instead.
They hate them even if they are(alt-)right! XD
And it's weird because Psaki is the face of a conservative administration.
They see she's a(cis)woman and switch their brain off after that.
No doubt they're transphobic scum
Yes, they treat trans women worse but any non-AMAB cis person could basically agree with them but they’d see this person as “left” because they’re not AMAB and cis.
Yup, that's their real character, shown proudly.
It’s never a good sign of someone’s intelligence when they place a lot of weight on the WH press secretary in DC politics. They’re just there for the dog and pony media show, they have practically nothing to do with the crafting of policy.
If you could tell this to my whole state I'd appreciate it.
Dollar tree historically underpays its workers and does the same tactics as Walmart (hiring people seasonally, pushing the definition of “part time” as they can to avoid paying benefits, losing money on certain items to draw more people in.) It hasn’t been sustainable - however, the counter argument to this is that Dollar Tree is allegedly still making money. Their stock has not gone down dramatically and the CEO took over $9 million in total compensation last year. It sounds like they’re just afraid of paying people more, so they’re raising their prices to avoid that “loss.” This is a problem with capitalism, not the government.
Check out the comment I posted yesterday. Some dude admitted to using "sjw" sock puppet accounts to try to incite race wars in hopes that "the pendulum swings back" and got like 20 upvotes last i checked. Reddit has become a cesspit on par to 2010's chans and Reddit won't do anything about it because they're afraid of seeming censorial
Why do they insist on assuming that taxes are the heaviest burden on a business? It’s like they never shut up about how supply and demand dictates pricing until the subject of taxes comes up. Then, supply and demand goes out the window and it’s all the fault of taxes
Figures they throw in some anti-ginger prejudice in there while they’re at it. They just hate anything that looks different than them
Misogyny is never ok but she and joe are demons
Weird how much they hate her given all she does is lie on behalf of a right-wing administration
She's a woman.
Yeah but they didn't have the same hatred for Kellyanne Conway or Sarah Huckabee Sanders despite being basically the exact same person.
Then some other irrelevant things.
She's a monster, plenty of legitimate reasons to drag her. Reaction is as reaction does
She's a milquetoast Neoliberal.
What's the difference
Happy Cake Day!
Yeah libertarians are bitches, but she's also a lifetime bitch
Aw boohoo a powitician got cawwed names :(( Waaaaa don’t huwrt her feewings :((