Hacker News Reader

Comment by TheRealDunkirk | Hacker News Reader

> If they want to keep their dancers from quitting, they'll likely have to raise prices enough to get a similar amount of cash into the hands of their dancers, while also meeting their tax obligations.

Like people always say, when corporate taxes are discussed (and now I'm guilty of it too): companies don't pay taxes; consumers do.

View on HN

Not always true. It depends on the price demand elasticity curve and margins.

Imagine Acme Inc selling Widgets at $100.

If taxes go up, the company's first instinct would be to increase the price. This works for some markets and products. However, if the customers and market are sensitive to price, they will lower or stop their consumption from Acme Inc. or move to competitors or substitute products e.g cooking at home instead of restaurants. In that case, Acme Inc has to pay the taxes out of their profits, assuming their profit was high enough, which results in lower profits, or takes losses and go out of business eventually.

Oh, I get it, and I've argued that companies like Amazon should be taxed heavily, for these very reasons. It would slow them down, and put them on more equal footing with the other companies they're putting out of business. But every time I bring it up, I get that quip, so I figured I'd start there for a change. ;-)

Yes, but to make up those lower profits Acme Inc. could just reduce compensation for its employees. And I think that is what TheRealDunkirk was trying to say. That when corporate taxes are levied, eventually it is the employees who end up taking the burden.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com