Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 147: Line 147:     
:We're not talking about economics in this particular article; we're talking about people who say one thing and do another.  With regard to smoking-related taxation, there are people who demanded the tax, both in state government and in anti-smoking organizations, and these same people expected to make a windfall in revenue as soon as taxes were raised, ''while at the same time telling the public they expect people would reduce or quit smoking as a result of the higher rates''.  The only way that the state can collect those higher rates is for people to be smoking; the state cannot collect the taxes from cigarette sales if nobody is lighting up.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
 
:We're not talking about economics in this particular article; we're talking about people who say one thing and do another.  With regard to smoking-related taxation, there are people who demanded the tax, both in state government and in anti-smoking organizations, and these same people expected to make a windfall in revenue as soon as taxes were raised, ''while at the same time telling the public they expect people would reduce or quit smoking as a result of the higher rates''.  The only way that the state can collect those higher rates is for people to be smoking; the state cannot collect the taxes from cigarette sales if nobody is lighting up.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
What basic economics tells you is that both is possible. You can raise the taxes by 7%, and then make a windfall and have consumption drops by up to 6.5%. What is so difficult to understand about that. [[User:Order]]
2,002

edits

Navigation menu