http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110010377
Sure, now it is only cigars. Next it will be anything the Congress considers a luxury. And yes, Gorge H.W. Bush was wrong then. How many jobs were lost? Who do you people think makes those luxury items? Fairies?
2007-07-26 14:24:45 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
There will be an exception to this punitive tax so cigars that are bought with recreational uses in mind that do not require the cigars to be lit will not be taxed. Since all burning, including cigars, contributes to global warming, only cigars bought with the intention of lighting them will be taxed, because only those cigars contribute to global warming. Cigars bought for the purpose of a more local form of warming like that practiced in the oval office during the Clinton administration should not be taxed. Local warming cigars are good. Global warming cigars are bad. Congress remembers.
2007-07-26 16:16:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Phrases like 'yacht industry' and 'cigar workers' make me snicker, a little, but, yes, it is true that raising a tax on an item can substantially reduce the sales of that item, or lead to smuggling or other schemes to avoid paying the tax.
The key factor is the elasticity of demand. Economists /can/ do studdies to estimate the elasticity of demand for a product, and predict the effect of a price increase (due to taxes) - not with awe-inspiring accuracy, but it can be done.
I would assume that any tax on a specific item would undergoe such scrutiny, and the level of taxation would be pegged at something the market could absorb without greatly reduced activity. I would assume that, if I were talking about any tax-levying entity other than the US Congress, that is...
2007-07-27 12:24:55 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
$1.25/gallon gas would be a luxury for me. Ahhh, the Clinton days. Good times.
2007-07-26 21:27:34 · answer #3 · answered by Remember the GOP? 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋