The Robin Hood Tax

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
In your case, I'd impose a 100% carbon tax.

😠

Originally posted by no1marauder
Please take a night course in Economics; perhaps it will dissuade you from insisting on such nonsense.

I wasn't "insisting" on anything. I was hoping to hear you explain why it was "such nonsense"; but I guess your trademark condescending dismissal was shorter and easier to type. Whatever.

To anyone with some economics background: Care to pick up the slack and explain to me why what I said was such nonsense?

Originally posted by sh76
To anyone with some economics background: Care to pick up the slack and explain to me why what I said was such nonsense?[/b]

I don't need any economic background to know why what you are saying is such nonsense. I think its pretty clear. What you say is nonsense becasuse you disagree with him. How dare you!! 😠

Originally posted by sh76
I wasn't "insisting" on anything. I was hoping to hear you explain why it was "such nonsense"; but I guess your trademark condescending dismissal was shorter and easier to type. Whatever.

To anyone with some economics background: Care to pick up the slack and explain to me why what I said was such nonsense?

Price isn't determined solely by production costs. That's all you need to know to realize that a $50 tax isn't necessarily going to raise the price by $50. Generally, a tax will reduce demand, which means production will have to be scaled down (unless the demand for the good is completely inelastic). If producers can just pass on the $50, they wouldn't have to scale down their production.

Originally posted by sh76
I wasn't "insisting" on anything. I was hoping to hear you explain why it was "such nonsense"; but I guess your trademark condescending dismissal was shorter and easier to type. Whatever.

To anyone with some economics background: Care to pick up the slack and explain to me why what I said was such nonsense?

I'll try to be nice though it's annoying when someone first concedes that the tax incidence wouldn't be 100% to consumers and then posts something later arguing it will be. Here's your starting point:

sh76: Banks make their money from people. If they pay higher taxes, they simply pass on the tax to the consumer.

OK, let's change this to a logically equivalent statement:

sh76: I make my money from my employer. If I pay higher taxes, I'll simply pass it on to them.

Surely you can see the absurdity of the second statement, but why is it absurd? Simply because both assume that one player has 100% market power. But they do not. The incidence of any tax is a difficult thing to assess even after the tax is in place, but assuming beforehand where it will wind up based on ideological preconceptions is an error.

All that said, even if this particular tax COULD be 100% passed off to consumers of the products taxed, it would essentially be just raising taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations for doing something that has virtually zero overall economic value to society i.e. paper chasing paper.