There are a few irrefutable laws of basic economics that are understood by practically everyone. When the price of a good rises, people will buy less of it. This is common knowledge to anyone who has bought anything ever. There is also the law of unintended consequences which states that actions, laws, and policies often have secondary effects that differ from the original actions intentions. We have seen this inevitably played out in most laws passed by Congress. Both of these ideas have been around for thousands of years and the father of economics, Adam Smith, articulated them himself...
Gentle Readers, On the contrary: Ms. Pavlich is correct. If taxing sugary foods reduces the output and consumption of sugary foods, then logically, taxing capital, labor and other production inputs will reduce production and consumption in the economy generally. Her point here is that increasing marginal tax rates can have unforseen adverse economic impacts. She then points out that if liberals can understand how increasing taxes reduce consuption of their disfavored products, they should understand how that affects other economic actions. She is correct. Sincerely, John Lepant Brighton CO
- Breaking: National lightbringer turns out not to be so centrist after all Ed Morrissey 14 minutes ago
- CPAC: Evan Sayet Ed Morrissey 33 minutes ago
- Mystery deepens: Missing Malaysian jet reportedly flew hundreds of miles in the wrong direction Allahpundit 54 minutes ago
- The Ed Morrissey Show: Andrew Malcolm, Melissa Henson Ed Morrissey 1 hour ago
- Hawaii ponders: It might be time to start taxing insurers for not participating in our ObamaCare exchange Erika Johnsen 1 hour ago
- Rand Paul to Ted Cruz: Stop mischaracterizing my foreign policy views Allahpundit 2 hours ago