4 ms·
Or just pass another law forbidding the 'depriving [any] passengers of the flight experience that they bought and paid for'. I see no compelling reason for tax
by cortic 7y ago
Or just pass another law forbidding the 'depriving [any] passengers of the flight experience that they bought and paid for'. I see no compelling reason for taxes to subsidize companies just to help them follow the law, i get no subsidies to help me not steal things or to obey traffic lights. And I'm not posting millions in profits.
- rayiner 7y agoThere is a huge difference between laws that require you not to do something, and ones that require you to spend limited resources providing affirmative benefits to people.
- matthewmacleod 7y agoNo there isn’t. You can logically construct one set from the other. If you are unable to run a business that provides equal access to the level required by regulation, then your business is unsustainable and cannot function. This is the same situation as running a business that cannot afford to provide a service while meeting environmental regulations.
- PaulAJ 7y agoFrom the politician's point of view there is a very important difference. If you raise taxes and then use that money to pay for something then you are responsible for a tax increase. Opposition politicians can point to your tax increase and complain that this is costing the average taxpayer $N per year. However if you make a regulation which does the same thing then the cost does not cross the government's books, so nobody can say that you are costing anybody anything in particular. Its much better politics, regardless of the economics.