• OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The diagram shows how price goes up and less consumers are able to access goods when you raise taxes within a market economy.

      It is also an econ 101 level oversimplification, but it is arguing against your claims.

      • explodicle@local106.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No it doesn’t. As you can see, market price is where the supply line meets the demand line. Since supply is perfectly inelastic (vertical), a higher tax rate cuts into producer surplus without changing where supply and demand meet.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That isnt true, housing supply isn’t inelastic. Houses decay, new homes are built, and landlords remove homes from the market to artificially constrain supply.

          Also that isnt what the graph illustrates.

          • J Lou@mastodon.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            LVT taxes the unimproved value of land, so we are talking about land itself not what is built on top of it such as housing. Since land is a product of nature, the supply of it is perfectly inelastic

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              People live in housing though, which is distinct from land, and the thing they’re claiming is static

      • explodicle@local106.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Supply and demand diagrams are covered in introductory economics classes worldwide. Hint hint.

          • explodicle@local106.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are arguing about a subject for which you have chosen to not educate yourself whatsoever.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Don’t sweat it to much, you are arguing against someone with an anti-education on how economics actually works to the point you can intuit how they’re wrong without knowing any of the theory behind their argument.

            • explodicle@local106.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              someone with an anti-education

              This is anti-intellectualism. Please either take a single econ class or stop spreading misinformation.

              • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Anti-intellectualism would require you to have more formal or informal economics education, you’re calling electron fields anti-intellectual because you’ve only learned electron orbits