Re: SCHIP - is it going to happen this time

Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:Misc-
9488F4.10401407012009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Minimum wage worker then pays more for
his coffee, but he doesn't have the power to force McDonald's
to raise his salary accordingly.

Sort-of. He *DOES* have the power to say "*** that! I'm not
paying $4 for a 6oz 'grande'...!" and take his leisure money
elsewhere.

And "elsewhere", there's some other tax being passed on to him.
Even if there isn't, his standard of living has just gone down,
and he has no power (immediately) to change that. His ability
to buy stuff has just gone down, his paycheck with worth less.
So in the end, he's still paying. He gives his 8 hours of labor
per day, but his boss is paying him less for it (because it's now
worth less.) Where is the boss's loss in this?

It also affects the upper middle class, as they also buy Starbucks
(why?!) It even affects the rich, as gas & coffee prices for their
yachts go up, and they don't DIRECTLY raise prices (have to go through
boards, accountants, wrestle with marketing people, etc.)

No one said "directly". Playfair said "ultimately" which
most certainly means "indirectly".

So, while the quote has some validity, it also has all the flaws
inherent in most any generalization, the main one being that it's only
partially true, some of the time.

I'm still waiting for an example of when it's not true.



I wonder if you can give an example of a tax which doesn't get
passed on to the poor?

That's not Playfair's statement.

Yes it is.

Ok, a tax that doesn't get passed on to the poor: luxury tax on private
aircraft of a size bigger than the poor can ever afford to charter.

Which is paid for by charging more for whatever means the rich
guy makes his money. Which means, ultimately, the most powerless
person in the chain.



But, again, it's a contrived example designed to avoid the contrived
traps of a challenge based on a generalization. I'm certain that you
could (well, *I* could -- and you're every bit as good at this as I am!
:) concoct a Rube-Goldberg-esque path by which such a luxury tax ends-up
being paid by the poor. (Simple example: lowered wages/less-career-
path
for the guy who washes the aircraft.)

...But that's pretty contrived, too.

It's not contrived; it's what happens.


Maybe what I was getting at in my "wild generalization" is: while
rich-people taxes are partly paid by the poor, they are also paid by
the
middle class and other rich. The cost of production is shared among
the
consumers, and no one is not a consumer.

But some consumers have the power to pass on their extra expenses,
while others don't. Guess which ones don't.

B.

--
Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.
.

Loading