I'm not sure I've ever seen you express such neo-liberal economic views. But if that's how you want to view the world, I don't want the consumer to pay either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Printable View
I'm not sure I've ever seen you express such neo-liberal economic views. But if that's how you want to view the world, I don't want the consumer to pay either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
The only time the number would be 90%, let alone 99.9%, is when the product is highly inelastic (e.g. cigarettes, gasoline). Is it really asking too much for you to at least google a topic before saying the first stupid thing that comes to your head?Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Who do you want to pay for government? Somebody has to. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The only companies that eat their advertising expenses are the ones that can't sell their product. Are you really that dense?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Hint: the price companies charge for a product isn't directly contingent on how much it costs to make it. Companies charge as much as they do because of supply and demand. They advertise to drive up demand, which allows them to increase prices. If two companies had the same price structure and were selling the same product, and one decided to advertise, it would not be able to raise prices at all, let alone by its advertising budget. The goal would be to drive up demand for their product, which would allow them to increase its price at some future date. If the advertising failed, then they would have spent money on advertising without being able to increase prices. I swear that your knowledge of economics is below that of the laziest students I've ever come across. You never miss an opportunity to say the most idiotic things that come to your head without bothering to verify their veracity. Do you think because something comes to your head, it automatically should be posted here? And do you think that just because something comes to your head, it must be true? The quote "the less you know, the more you think you know" must have been created with you in mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
I had to cut out half of your response because it had nothing to do with the conversation. As for what I did quote, it does not at all refute my statement. Especially if I put a qualifier in there to cover my ass like you always do. Fine I will qualify,Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Like I said before, consumers pay for the advertising when they buy the product.Quote:
The only companies that eat their advertising expenses are the ones that can't sell their product for the price they expect.
But anyway, I'm more interested in a response concerning this,
Who do you want to pay for government? Somebody has to. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Would you feel better with a consumer sales tax for any internet purchase, if that company used the internet to advertise?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
When catalog sales took off, that's how US states dealt with it. Some did, some didn't tax catalog purchases. Some states then had duty-free outlet malls to replace catalog sales volume. But the buses coming from out-of-state had to pay a transportation surcharge.
Any way you look at it, there are going to be some taxes, somehow someway. They all eventually trickle down to the consumer.
The problem isn't taxation per se. The problem is the distortion of resources. By double taxing industries as soon as they become successful, you're in essence shifting resources to industries that are not successful. That means you're artificially giving a competitive disadvantage to the industries that are most likely to succeed in the long run. As a result, you harm the ability of those firms to stay internationally competitive and prop up industries that will end up failing anyway.
The dilemma is taxes. Calling things 'double taxation' or 'distortion of resources' infuses philosophy into politics. Using terms like 'international competition' and 'prop up industries' in the same sentence as 'harm' is a political tactic.
The same can be said of environmental laws. Talk about distortion of resources. But do you want to get rid of those laws?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Externalities are a separate issue. Are you simply incapable of staying on topic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Many states do charge sales taxes for online purchases. But as Loki said, it's the idea that a new industry somehow exists to the detriment of another (which may or may not be true in this case), this it must pay tribute to the declining industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Taxing a bus entering a state is consistent because it's a flat fee per bus, regardless of what that bus was up to. And the tax certainly didn't try to approximate the value of the goods in everyone's lap. This is different -- basically, the French government is saying that online advertisers must pay an extra fee as punishment for not using older, outmoded forms of advertising. They may as well have charged a tax penalty to anyone who bought a Honda during the oil crisis instead of a gas-guzzling Cadillac.
Advertising is an externality? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
US states have varying types of tourism taxes, either in bus tickets or hotel rooms. We have varying degrees of consumption taxes for vices (booze, tobacco) or luxury taxes (second homes, boats, fine art or jewelry). We can decide not to tax necessities like food and clothing. Or we can create tax credits or rebates for things like buying hybrid cars, or weatherproofing homes, or.....buying new cars or new homes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Taxes are used as social incentives all the time. I don't see it as punishing new industries. I see it as trying to find revenue sources in order to fund government business.
We can argue all night about what a government should need to fund, or how to fund it with the smallest impact on the consumer. But it will all change, and necessarily so, as the world changes.
No, environmental issues are an externality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Environmental laws are not externalities. The impacts on society by not having environmental laws are externalities.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Environmental laws are to prevent externalities, advertising taxes have nothing to do with externalities. This is a false comparison.
I find it a perverse logic by the way, in a glass half empty versus half full argument that "not having environmental laws" causes externalities. No, human actions can cause environmental externalities so we have laws, not the other way around.
Well, don't look at me...it was that Loki character that tried using the false pretense of externalities to sway the argument in his favor.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
OMG, do you not get it? No he didn't, you did. Loki pointed out your flaw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Is it that hard to understand? You compared a tax with environmental laws. One is designed to raise money, the other to prevent externalities, they are completely different. :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by LokiThe same can be said of environmental laws. Talk about distortion of resources. But do you want to get rid of those laws?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Taxes and environmental laws you operate under are both taken into consideration when you set your price. You agreed to these conditions and set your price accordingly. Neither of these are externalities. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No, environmental laws exist to deal with externalities, that is their purpose.
So you are now saying that taxes don't deal with externalities in any form or fashion. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You're going round in circles. They can do, but they don't in this instance. You're comparing apples to oranges. Just drop the stupid analogy that doesn't work, admit you were wrong and move on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Pfff...looks like a straight line to me. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
This is pointless, if you still don't get it ...
I get it...consumers pay for advertizing. :rolleyes: That might be considered an externality in your book.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
That really says more about how your brain functions than about what has been said in this thread...Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
That's your way of conceding? Pretty weak.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I don't know if your reading comprehension is really in such a bad shape or you are intentionally reading things wrong to support your argument. Try to understand posts in their intended meaning and read through all the quotes you posted.
Fine, I concede...consumers don't pay for advertizing. I guess shareholders pay for it. WTF. :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
You must have quoted the wrong post, your answer doesn't seem to have any connection to what I wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Oh my God!Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
There is no fucking externality in advertising! :mad:
Welcome to Being's World.
Obeying the law is not an externality; it doesn't matter if the law is about taxes or environment. Obeying the law is something companies must take into account when they set prices for their goods or services. I raised the question of which causes greater distortion of resources, taxes or environmental laws, which Loki wouldn't answer based on his false belief that a company's cost for obeying environmental laws (which it agreed to do by setting up shop wherever the law exists) is an externality. :rolleyes:
If you actually believe what you wrote there, you need help.
Tell me which part offends your senses.
The part where you seem to be having a conversation with yourself, replying to points not made by anyone other than your head.
Good ole Faily McBaggins we used to call 'im
Maybe we should give him the right to have a second user name, so he can write out the things he answers to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That's probably why he had multiple user names on Atari. :noob: