3 ms·
500% tax is isn't 4x revenue. Either the consumer pays the tax, so its 4x the product cost, or the vendor pays it, and prices the tax into the sale price, so th
by trhtrsh 14y ago
500% tax is isn't 4x revenue. Either the consumer pays the tax, so its 4x the product cost, or the vendor pays it, and prices the tax into the sale price, so the tax us 83% of revenue.
Take an example: water costs 2cents/gallon. a 500% tax would make water 10cents a gallon. That would be enough to promote agressive conservation, but not prohibitively expensive.
Soda costs <$1/quart at grocery, less at wholesale. But if you buy it at a restaurant, you pay >$1/pint, for 500% markup. Yet it's not prohibitve, because the baseline is sooooo cheap.
- smsm42 14y agoI don't know how much you pay for water in your house, but I know how much I pay. 5x increase would be very substantive expense for me, coming very close to "prohibitively expensive".
- Retric 14y agoMunicipal water costs in the US average around .0015 cents a gallon. Flushing your toilets with .0075 cents per gallon would not be prohibitive, growing crops with .0075 cents per gallon water would be. However, far more water goes to growing crops than flushing toilets. PS: There are actually huge swings in water costs in different areas, which does impact water use significantly.
- sliverstorm 14y agogrowing crops with .0075 cents per gallon water would be Only because everybody else is growing with 0.0015 cents a gallon. If everybody was growing with 0.0075 cents per gallon, food would be more expensive, but we wouldn't suddenly be unable to feed ourselves.
- Retric 14y agoAll things being equal if water averaged .0075 cents per gallon it's because there was less of it. So, we would still use some of it to grow crops, but we would not be growing as much food. PS: We are used to abundance, but there really are hard limits out there.