3 ms·
i dont understand the proposal to tax the employee. Taxing an activity makes it happen less. If the gov't want fewer railroad workers (or in your hypothetical
by chii 4y ago
i dont understand the proposal to tax the employee.
Taxing an activity makes it happen less. If the gov't want fewer railroad workers (or in your hypothetical example, mining equipment operators), they'd tax them like this! there'd be fewer operators as a result, and any shortage of them will cause problems. These operators aren't slaves - they can quit the industry.
The gov't would instead tax those employees _less_, in order for them to keep more of their wages, and thus encourage more of them to exist.
- notch656a 4y agoExcept the premise given by bumbly above was that the employee's labor is inelastic as they are locked into the industry, and thus the labor would shoulder all of the tax without change in supply. Your comment is directly calling bumbly a liar.
- bumby 4y agoJust stop with the hyperbolic statements and strawmanning. It's against HN guidelines.[1] Also, I did not say their labor is inelastic (at least not at the collective level). The employees have a right to strike. However, the govt has said their labor is a necessity for the public good and has reserved the right to regulate it. Therefore, there is not a free market to set the price for labor as long as that regulatory mechanism exists. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html