Public Employee Unions want to change Prop. 13 so busness property tax goes up & up more every year. (San Francisco: square footage, assessment)

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

This is supposed to close the loophole in Prop 13 that businesses have been using to get out of having their property re-assessed when there's a change in ownership.

Its focus is on businesses that, when purchasing a commercial property, carve up ownership shares to make sure that no one has a majority ownership stake, thus avoiding triggering a reassessment leading to higher property taxes.

I do not disagree with re-appraisal when ownership changes, as in a stock buy out. But any change would damage far more businesses than it would change the cost on businesses sold through a stock sale. Most business sales are asset sales, except for large Corporations, and the new owner pays a readjusted price.

Do a law that addresses your complaint instead of one that damages a huge number of small businesses.

[Independentthinking]

Ultrarunner,

I never get tired of seeing you eviscerate the arguments of those wanting to abolish Prop 13. I just sit back, munch on my popcorn, and laugh at you take apart their flawed logic. Admittedly, it never ceases to amaze me that there are so many fans of the 1%ers out there. I've never seen so much love for the Uber rich.

Thank you!

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Beside passing a tax on businesses just increases your costs as that tax increase will ultimately come out of your pocket and at a higher level due to the costs businesses will incur with the added cost and paperwork. remember business get their money from ..... you. They don't print it, so higher taxes paid come from... you.

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Prices only rise when consumers are willing to pay more, that is why prices rarely increase more than a few cents when costs go up, i.e. the cost of beef doubling a few years ago. A business can rarely if ever pass on all cost increases to consumers, if they try to raise prices too much they are very likely to go out of business.

One of the fundamental lessons of economics is that there is a distinction between who pays a tax (a business in this case) and who bears the ultimate burden of the tax.

100% of the increase in a tax on a business flows to people. People bear the burden. Which people? It is a combination of customers in the form of higher prices, employees in the form of lower total compensation (and fewer employees), and business owners/shareholders in the form of lower profits.

Note the converse is true as well: 100% of any tax cut flows through to those same people as well.

How much of the change in the tax burden flows to each? It depends on the slopes of the supply & demand curves (price elasticities of demand & price elasticities of supply) for products & for labor. It also depends on possible substitutes for each (cross-elasticities of demand).

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Other than small businesses, most companies have National prices and they go up with costs..

This chart is from a couple years ago but still relevant.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

One of the fundamental lessons of economics is that there is a distinction between who pays a tax (a business in this case) and who bears the ultimate burden of the tax.

100% of the increase in a tax on a business flows to people. People bear the burden. Which people? It is a combination of customers in the form of higher prices, employees in the form of lower total compensation (and fewer employees), and business owners/shareholders in the form of lower profits.

Note the converse is true as well: 100% of any tax cut flows through to those same people as well.

How much of the change in the tax burden flows to each? It depends on the slopes of the supply & demand curves (price elasticities of demand & price elasticities of supply) for products & for labor. It also depends on possible substitutes for each (cross-elasticities of demand).

100% of all costs are always passed to customers. That is the very definition of for-profit business. No other possible way to be in business. So basic it's absurd to even state it. Bizarre expat and you would even try to explain as if there was any option.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

One of the fundamental lessons of economics is that there is a distinction between who pays a tax (a business in this case) and who bears the ultimate burden of the tax.

100% of the increase in a tax on a business flows to people. People bear the burden. Which people? It is a combination of customers in the form of higher prices, employees in the form of lower total compensation (and fewer employees), and business owners/shareholders in the form of lower profits.

Note the converse is true as well: 100% of any tax cut flows through to those same people as well.

How much of the change in the tax burden flows to each? It depends on the slopes of the supply & demand curves (price elasticities of demand & price elasticities of supply) for products & for labor. It also depends on possible substitutes for each (cross-elasticities of demand).

That's just plain wrong and nothing more than a conservative myth. The only way a company can pass 100% of a tax increase on is if they have a monopoly on the product or service that is in high demand. A well run business already has established the optimum price for their products or services, if they could charge more they would have already done so. The only way they can pass on a tax increase is if all other businesses in their sector do the same thing and demand is relatively inelastic which usually only occurs with commodities like gasoline.

And no business is going to cut wages unless they want to lose their workforce, the cost of hiring and training replacements would far outweigh any savings gained through a wage cut. Oh yeah..and if they will cut wages because of a tax increase, why didn't they pay them more when taxes were low ?

Honest Political Economics 101

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

This chart is from a couple years ago but still relevant.

True though it does vary a bit from State to State depending on the source and the costs in each State, but typically a yearly increase is seen in every State and in some cases another one when a new cost hits.

Those who are only 1/2 wake do not see reality.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

100% of all costs are always passed to customers. That is the very definition of for-profit business. No other possible way to be in business. So basic it's absurd to even state it. Bizarre expat and you would even try to explain as if there was any option.

Not always true mutt~ There are implications to passing on 100% of cost increases to consumers. When you do so you are 'guessing' that all competitors will do the same thing, if not then your sales might well decrease to the point where you are losing more than you would have by absorbing some or all of the increased cost.

Foundations of Economics: Businesses Cannot Simply Pass on Taxes to Consumers

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

This chart is from a couple years ago but still relevant.

Help me out here, what were you trying to prove? Because I added up the prices on both lists and it turns out that if you buy everything on the list the total in SF is $46.39, in Washington $47.98.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by expatCA

True though it does vary a bit from State to State depending on the source and the costs in each State, but typically a yearly increase is seen in every State and in some cases another one when a new cost hits.

Those who are only 1/2 wake do not see reality.

I'm not sure who is half awake here. Grocery prices are the same in Reno Nevada as they are in Northern California even though you claim that taxes are much lower in Nevada, so why aren't groceries cheaper in Nevada?