All taxes which fund the government manipulate the market.
Topic: Trickle-down taxation? - page 2. (Read 3718 times)
Free markets have nothing to do with reality. Blaming the free market for something is delusional.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Attempt to demonstrate the truth of your statement.
Free markets have nothing to do with reality. Blaming the free market for something is delusional.
I think this is an interesting analogy:
The above is how "lab-cultured" microorganisms behave. If you grow bacteria on "minimal media", which reproduces the usual natural environment more accurately, they do not do this. Instead there is an extended stationary phase. Interestingly if you collect the bacteria/yeast/whatever still surviving at the end of the death phase, they remain in an extended stationary phase even when given excess nutrients.
The above is how "lab-cultured" microorganisms behave. If you grow bacteria on "minimal media", which reproduces the usual natural environment more accurately, they do not do this. Instead there is an extended stationary phase. Interestingly if you collect the bacteria/yeast/whatever still surviving at the end of the death phase, they remain in an extended stationary phase even when given excess nutrients.
bacteria cannot innovate or grow their means of production. false analogy.
It is a bad analogy. Technology and it's increasing rate of innovation is the key which has allowed the free market to exploit the Earth's natural resources at an ever faster pace.
Key concepts:
- Overkill hypothesis (an example of technology causing massive changes to the environment)
- Sumatran rhino (an example of diminishing supply failing to diminish demand)
- Singularity (an example of accelerating trends which lead to increasing consumption)
- Poaching (an example of resource depletion until there is no more)
- Steady state economics (what is needed)
- Big Oil (an example of the free market hindering progress and encouraging resource depletion)
- Marketing/consumption vicious circle (an example of the free market sustaining its own excessive consumption)
Quote
bacteria cannot innovate or grow their means of production. false analogy.
"Bacteria" (as in populations of bacterium) can innovate, it's just ignorant to say otherwise. As for "grow their means of production", what is "means of production"?
I think this is an interesting analogy:
The above is how "lab-cultured" microorganisms behave. If you grow bacteria on "minimal media", which reproduces the usual natural environment more accurately, they do not do this. Instead there is an extended stationary phase. Interestingly if you collect the bacteria/yeast/whatever still surviving at the end of the death phase, they remain in an extended stationary phase even when given excess nutrients.
The above is how "lab-cultured" microorganisms behave. If you grow bacteria on "minimal media", which reproduces the usual natural environment more accurately, they do not do this. Instead there is an extended stationary phase. Interestingly if you collect the bacteria/yeast/whatever still surviving at the end of the death phase, they remain in an extended stationary phase even when given excess nutrients.
bacteria cannot innovate or grow their means of production. false analogy.
Here's one:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~skopf/ESE_Bi168/files/nrmicro1340.pdf
To be honest this is not my field so I can't vouch for the methods, but my understanding is that this is well known (even common sense) amongst the people working with microorganisms.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~skopf/ESE_Bi168/files/nrmicro1340.pdf
To be honest this is not my field so I can't vouch for the methods, but my understanding is that this is well known (even common sense) amongst the people working with microorganisms.
I think this is an interesting analogy:
The above is how "lab-cultured" microorganisms behave. If you grow bacteria on "minimal media", which reproduces the usual natural environment more accurately, they do not do this. Instead there is an extended stationary phase. Interestingly if you collect the bacteria/yeast/whatever still surviving at the end of the death phase, they remain in an extended stationary phase even when given excess nutrients.
The above is how "lab-cultured" microorganisms behave. If you grow bacteria on "minimal media", which reproduces the usual natural environment more accurately, they do not do this. Instead there is an extended stationary phase. Interestingly if you collect the bacteria/yeast/whatever still surviving at the end of the death phase, they remain in an extended stationary phase even when given excess nutrients.
Interested, link to source if you have it.
I think this is an interesting analogy:
The above is how "lab-cultured" microorganisms behave. If you grow bacteria on "minimal media", which reproduces the usual natural environment more accurately, they do not do this. Instead there is an extended stationary phase. Interestingly if you collect the bacteria/yeast/whatever still surviving at the end of the death phase, they remain in an extended stationary phase even when given excess nutrients.
The above is how "lab-cultured" microorganisms behave. If you grow bacteria on "minimal media", which reproduces the usual natural environment more accurately, they do not do this. Instead there is an extended stationary phase. Interestingly if you collect the bacteria/yeast/whatever still surviving at the end of the death phase, they remain in an extended stationary phase even when given excess nutrients.
Quote
The purpose of taxes should be only to fund the government, not manipulate the market.
Obviously tools can be used incorrectly, and this is my opinion.
All taxes which fund the government manipulate the market.
That's true, however some methods of taxing do so more than others. People should want their governments to avoid picking winners and losers as much as possible.
You need to apply the bigger picture. Read this: See link: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/
Quote
The purpose of taxes should be only to fund the government, not manipulate the market.
Obviously tools can be used incorrectly, and this is my opinion.
All taxes which fund the government manipulate the market.
That's true, however some methods of taxing do so more than others. People should want their governments to avoid picking winners and losers as much as possible.
Quote
The purpose of taxes should be only to fund the government, not manipulate the market.
Obviously tools can be used incorrectly, and this is my opinion.
All taxes which fund the government manipulate the market.
It's not a tax it's a fee.
Two different words, one effect.
Quote
The purpose of taxes should be only to fund the government, not manipulate the market.
Obviously tools can be used incorrectly, and this is my opinion.
It's not a tax it's a fee.
The purpose of taxes is to fund the government, not manipulate the market.
Oh, okay. If you say so.
Quote
To deal with externalities, estimate the cost to society and charge more for drilling rights.
Oh, you mean tax drilling rights, and thus manipulate the market?
In the end, in order for economies to become sustainable, one has to tax that which we want less of. One thing that we necessarily need less of are processes which consume more of the Earth's naturally produced capital than the Earth can produce per unit time. Such things typically are clean atmosphere, oil, natural gas, food, and most importantly, flora and fauna, since the Earth's flora and fauna contribute to the recycling of everything.
Identifying and taxing such processes shifts competition, and by extension, research and development into processes which are sustainable.
See link: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/
Identifying and taxing such processes shifts competition, and by extension, research and development into processes which are sustainable.
See link: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/
The purpose of taxes is to fund the government, not manipulate the market. To deal with externalities, estimate the cost to society and charge more for drilling rights.
In the end, in order for economies to become sustainable, one has to tax that which we want less of. One thing that we necessarily need less of are processes which consume more of the Earth's naturally produced capital than the Earth can produce per unit time. Such things typically are clean atmosphere, oil, natural gas, food, and most importantly, flora and fauna, since the Earth's flora and fauna contribute to the recycling of everything.
Identifying and taxing such processes shifts competition, and by extension, research and development into processes which are sustainable.
See link: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/
Identifying and taxing such processes shifts competition, and by extension, research and development into processes which are sustainable.
See link: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/
Um no. It reduces the dividend the company pays. The consumer pays the maximum he can be charged regardless of the company's costs. If the consumer is being undercharged, the directors are in breach of their duty.
You are correct, but your argument isn't relevant. Increasing the tax on oil doesn't just raise one company's costs, it raises *every* company's costs. You are quite correct that if something just raises the costs of one provider of a competitive good, most of the price cannot be passed onto the consumer. However, if something raises the prices of an entire market sector, most of the price will be passed on.The exception would be if there was easy good substitution from markets not taxed, but in that case, the tax wouldn't raise much money and would instead shift the market to less efficient goods. For example, if you did heavily tax oil, the result would be that for some uses where oil was maximally efficient, less efficient energy sources for that use would be substituted.
Here's the reductio ad absurdum to see why: Say gasoline is selling for $4/gallon. If the government taxes just Exxon $4 per gallon of gas sold, Exxon can't charge $8/gallon to make up the tax. They'll just have to stop selling gasoline and the prices will go up just a bit due to the increased competition. But say the government charges every company that sells gasoline $4/gallon in taxes. Surely you don't think the price at the pump will still be $4 per gallon.
I agree with your logic. asdf made the same point. A tax on oil would indeed raise prices.
However, the OP linked to a story about tax credits that are given to oil companies and no-one else. Its not a tax on oil - its the removal of subsidy that helps oil companies pay less tax on their profits than most others.
Um no. It reduces the dividend the company pays. The consumer pays the maximum he can be charged regardless of the company's costs. If the consumer is being undercharged, the directors are in breach of their duty.
You are correct, but your argument isn't relevant. Increasing the tax on oil doesn't just raise one company's costs, it raises *every* company's costs. You are quite correct that if something just raises the costs of one provider of a competitive good, most of the price cannot be passed onto the consumer. However, if something raises the prices of an entire market sector, most of the price will be passed on.The exception would be if there was easy good substitution from markets not taxed, but in that case, the tax wouldn't raise much money and would instead shift the market to less efficient goods. For example, if you did heavily tax oil, the result would be that for some uses where oil was maximally efficient, less efficient energy sources for that use would be substituted.
Here's the reductio ad absurdum to see why: Say gasoline is selling for $4/gallon. If the government taxes just Exxon $4 per gallon of gas sold, Exxon can't charge $8/gallon to make up the tax. They'll just have to stop selling gasoline and the prices will go up just a bit due to the increased competition. But say the government charges every company that sells gasoline $4/gallon in taxes. Surely you don't think the price at the pump will still be $4 per gallon.
Jump to: