The scenario you present is so oddly specific and contrived I don't really know how to respond to it. The fact that you mention investment potential as a downs

The scenario you present is so oddly specific and contrived I don't really know how to respond to it. The fact that you mention investment potential as a downside of eating the tax is really amusing to me: is it so hard to imagine a sustainable business that actually makes money? Pumping up the numbers to attract investors is not something that matters to a well established profitable business. Half the economy is small businesses, and the owners tend to be a lot more pragmatic than boardrooms. > While I think you can cross your fingers and hope a bunch of people famous for being cutthroatly pragmatic will out of the goodness of their heart eat a tax for you... You've completely missed the point. What I'm pointing out is that, sometimes, cutting prices is the cutthroaty pragmatic choice, because undercutting a competitor may net you more total money at a lower profit. That moderates the effect of taxes, and prevents them from being fully priced in. Even if nobody actually does it, the risk that somebody might affects the market. Demand for what you do/sell is what fundamentally limits how much money you make, not profit margin. Increasing demand enough can offset decreasing margin. Arbitrary example: Walmart can absorb a local tax increase which other small local retailers can't because Walmart's tax burden is spread across many tax localities. They get more business and make more money. It isn't goodwill, it is rational. Just look at tariffs we've seen in the past few years: did all prices instantly jump by the amount of the tariff? Nope.