3 ms·
No, it's not. That money is lost to the government, not to your actual costs (labor/goods/etc). To illustrate the point clearly imagine I'm a robber. Each time
by TangoTrotFox 8y ago
No, it's not. That money is lost to the government, not to your actual costs (labor/goods/etc). To illustrate the point clearly imagine I'm a robber. Each time I see you get paid I come and rob you. I take 30% of everything in your wallet. If I suddenly stop robbing you, you're suggesting that now all of your costs would increase. This is obviously not rational.
- trhway 8y ago>That money is lost to the government, not to your actual costs (labor/goods/etc). as long as the money is lost ... I'm not arguing that sticker price of that employee went up. I'm saying that my net total changes differently while i'm paying the same sticker price. In the case of lower taxes my total decreases more when i pay the same sticker price. Thus it is more costly to me. > If I suddenly stop robbing you, you're suggesting that now all of your costs would increase. Obviously. For better illustration lets say you take 90%. Before, for every $1 paid in my costs, my end total was decreasing by $0.1 and you were losing $0.9. Once robbing stops my total would be decreasing $1 for each $1 paid in my costs. So, in order to obtain the same thing, in one situation i'd loose $0.1 and in another - $1. I.e. in one situation the same thing is 10 times cheaper for me than in the other.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]