From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: The end of the Reagan Era
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:37:14 GMT

In <1992Nov11.132218.1905@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@benedict.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:

>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>sug6@benedict.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>>>  Of course, you could claim that your "employer" pays the 1.5%, but
>>>if you believe that, you probably believe in "employer contribution"
>>>to FICA.  Businesses do not pay taxes, they collect them.  People pay
>>>taxes in one way or another.  This is all fairly basic micro really.
>>
>>A prime example of proof by assertion, I see.  If you say something
>>with enough confidence, people aren't supposed to questoin it?  Sorry,
>>but the reality of things just isn't quite as cut and dried as your
>>statement portrays it, nor is there anything like unanimity of belief
>>in it.

>  Review some economic studies and get back to me.  If you need any help with
>text recommendations or that of studies in this area, I will be glad
>to provide some.  You may want to look at the Chicago Fed's estimate
>of the cost of regulations on jobs or studies done by Vedder and
>Gallaway in the Fall issue of Policy Review.  New regulations have been 
>repeatedly shown to cost jobs.  Certainly, the 2.5% increase in the cost
>of labor since 1990 hasn't helped the job situation much.

Note that saying that there is some economic impact from regulation is
NOT the same thing as what you asserted above, unless you assume the
only two possible choices a business can make are to pass through NONE
of the added cost (unlikely in the extreme) or to pass through ALL of
the added cost (also unlikely).  There's lots of middle ground there,
and lots of reasons for companies to NOT pass all taxes, regulatory
costs, etc., through 100% to the consumer.  It's this assertion that
'companies don't pay taxes -- only collect them' that I disagree with,
and you have provided no evidence to support such a claim, which is
NOT, as you asserted it was, "fairly basic micro really".

>  Feel free to continue espousing propaganda rather than economics.
>Politicians do it on a regular basis.  There is no reason why another
>USENET poster is going to make a significant difference.  The very idea
>that corporations are somehow faceless taxpayers and that additional
>regulations have no effect on jobs or wages just isn't true.  Take
>a look at the above studies (or virtually any basic micro text) and you
>will see the results.

Once again we see this 'all or nothing' assumption on your part.  Note
that I never asserted that regulation has NO effect on jobs or wages;
merely that this idea that corporations will pass 100% of everything
through is simply not supported by the facts (or the theory), and
hence your efforts to portray it as 'basic micro' are simply
incorrect.  See any basic micro text for reasons why this is so.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc