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
- Quotes of the day Allahpundit 3 hours ago
- Sally Kohn: How can Israel supporters argue the IDF’s violence is justified, but Hamas’ isn’t? Guy Benson 3 hours ago
- Most transparent administration ever closes Apollo 11 anniversary event to press Mary Katharine Ham 4 hours ago
- Chuck Schumer: What say we have fully open primaries from now on? Allahpundit 5 hours ago
- Univision anchor: No government should be in the business of deporting children Allahpundit 5 hours ago
- Florida dad who beat son’s alleged molester to a pulp: I went to get a butcher knife to finish him off Allahpundit 6 hours ago