3 ms·
corporate tax increases will just get passed on to consumers... And mining taxes on power usage is just ridiculous... why don't you add an extra tax on gold us
by fddrdplktrew 3y ago
corporate tax increases will just get passed on to consumers...
And mining taxes on power usage is just ridiculous... why don't you add an extra tax on gold used for jewelry too? and luxury cars, yachts, and anything that isn't really useful?
- ryandrake 3y ago> why don't you add an extra tax on gold used for jewelry too? and luxury cars, yachts, and anything that isn't really useful? These are all really good ideas... Great comment!
- fddrdplktrew 3y agoAlso, they are already taxing crypto transactions. (They are treated like stocks in the USA)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sidewndr46 3y agoHow about any private jet with a politician on board?
- fddrdplktrew 3y agoor https://mastodon.social/@elonjet https://mastodon.social/@elonjet
- hombre_fatal 3y agoThen how about a luxury that you wouldn’t want to give up like eating meat, which is far more wasteful than eating plants directly? Or any of the other luxuries you take for granted?
- nickthegreek 3y agoBitcoin and food. Totally comparable. Also, food is under way more regulation than crypto.
- fddrdplktrew 3y agoexcept that they don't enforce much rules when it comes to food. Two examples are fish and olive oil... you probably will never know if you got what you paid for... They just don't inspect. It's probably a bigger problem for fish, because you can get fish that taste about the same but is full of mercury or other toxins.
- PlunderBunny 3y agoThe slippery slope has meat at the end!
- audunw 3y agoYet another example where a supposed “gotcha” is simply a good idea. There’s two sides to eating meat: 1: In many cases it’s actually not less efficient than eating a plant. If I eat some lamb or sheep in my area, they’re eating wild stuff growing in the hills and mountains. I’d like to see you try to eat what they’re eating, or grow anything we can eat there without destroying nature. In many cases cattle is raised on land not suited for growing food for human consumption, especially high quality protein. In many regions, you’d have no chance of getting local sustainable high quality proteins without meat or fish. 1.5: There’s also the aspect that raising animals is the only way to do sustainable, regenerative agriculture. How do sustainably fertilise your soil without them? 2: In the cases where meat is produced in an unsustainable way, it IS indeed a luxury that should be taxed. We shouldn’t cut down rainforest to grow soy for cattle feed or to make pastures for cattle for export.
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoLuxury taxes are a thing in China. I think we used to have something like that on cars in the states, but they disappeared at some time? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax#:~:text=United%20States,-In%20November%201991&text=This%20tax%20was%20levied%20on,furs%20and%20jewelry%20over%20%2410%2C000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax#:~:text=United%20St.... 10% from 1991 to 2002 it seems.
- Retric 3y agoTaxing profits can't directly be passed on to consumers because the point of profit maximization remains unchanged. IE if a restaurant makes more money charging 25$ for a meal than 30$ then increasing prices simply reduces profits. What gets passed on is things that increase costs for the industry like property taxes. If every landlord in the city pays an extra 50$ a month/unit in property taxes you bet rent's going up to compensate.
- fddrdplktrew 3y agoI don't think that's true in the medium term... definitely not in the long term... and maybe not even in the short term.
- ProjectArcturis 3y agoYour airtight logic astounds me.
- fddrdplktrew 3y agothnaks
- Retric 3y agoThink it though. If you could make more money long term while using cheaper ingredients or similar cost saving measure then what's to stop you from doing that without the tax increase?
- kelnos 3y agoDepending on the circumstances, that's a big "if". If your not-so-cheap ingredients are one of your restaurant's selling points (even if not explicitly), using cheaper ingredients could reduce your sales such that the savings turns out to be a wash, or a waste. I think this happens all the time: it's not uncommon to see a restaurant review that goes something like, "I'd been coming here for years, but the quality of food has gone down recently". Granted, you don't know why: maybe they switched to cheaper ingredients, or maybe they got some new cooks that prepare things poorly (or even just differently), etc. But some type of cost-cutting measure could be to blame. And if that person -- and others (and perhaps potential new customers who see the recent bad reviews) -- stops visiting or visits less frequently, those cost-cutting measures may turn out to not have been worth it.
- pwg 3y ago> why don't you add an extra tax on ... yachts They tried that, back in November 1991. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxury_tax#United_States It covered more than just yachts, but the biggest loser was the yacht industry, which saw sales plummet: [quoting wikipedia]: The federal government estimated that it would raise $9 billion in excess revenues over the following five-year period. However, only two years after its imposition, in August 1993, at the behest of the luxury yacht industry, President Bill Clinton and Congress eliminated the "luxury tax" citing a loss in jobs.[6] Atwood, Liz. "Boat dealers predict sales increase Luxury tax repeal helps ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY BUSINESS". baltimoresun.com. Retrieved 23 August 2019. [end wikipedia quote] It turns out that luxuries are just that, luxuries, and the rich were more than willing to "do without" yet another yacht (or other luxury good) while the tax was on the books, and the tax never netted the "budget gains" its proponents predicted it would net, due to sales of all the taxed goods dropping off precipitously.
- ProjectArcturis 3y agoIsn't it still a win for the economy if the production that would have been wasted on yachts is instead invested to further increase productivity?
- i_like_waiting 3y agoHow is building yachts for people who demand it more wasteful than producing perfumes, collectibles or nicer lamps? Who gets to decide what is waste as long as there is demand?
- ryandrake 3y agoIn a democracy, ultimately the public should get to decide. Even if "taxing yachts" is not a win for the economy it might be a win for society. The USA is way too timid when it comes to using the tax code to incentivize and shape companies' and people's behavior. We really need to "re-internalize" the costs that big business and the rich externalize onto the public, and one way to do this is to impose very narrowly-directed taxes at things that the public bears but doesn't benefit from.
- pfannkuchen 3y agoThe “luxury car” label gets applied to anything that isn’t aggressively cost cut IMO. True excessive luxury cars do exist, but the label is basically meaningless at this point.
- ripjaygn 3y ago> corporate tax increases will just get passed on to consumers... Like how the corporate tax decreases in 2018 got passed on to consumers...right? Don't we all remember the big deflation in the past 6 years? And all that money was totally not used for stock buybacks and what not, right?