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
- Sen. Bernie Sanders confronted by constituents: ‘F*** Israel!’ Noah Rothman 21 mins ago
- Obama not grasping the seriousness of the Foley murder, says … Chris Matthews? Ed Morrissey 1 hour ago
- Decision to release details of failed raid to free James Foley backfires on White House Noah Rothman 1 hour ago
- Philadelphia mayor prepares to fund Russian mob with new cigarette tax Jazz Shaw 2 hours ago
- Quotes of the day Allahpundit 12 hours ago
- Yep: MSNBC would react quite differently if Tea Partiers threw rocks at them Mary Katharine Ham 12 hours ago