Group items tagged

In this article it is about "how the excise tax on gasoline and diesel fuel has been the main source of funds for building and maintaining the nation's roadways. It has paid for most of the four million road miles currently in service" By imposing taxes, governments obtain certain tax revenue which is used for supporting national infrastructure (roads), public services and subsidies for other things. But gas tax is not sufficient anymore. So, there are myriad discussions across political fields how to alter current tax policy. There are several options: taxing the miles (the question is how to tax the miles) toll roads (but they would hardly replace the gasoline tax), adjusting tax to inflation, taxing oil instead of gasoline or taxing cars. It seems resolving this issue is a hard nut to crack for the U.S. government.

tax 'dodging' has been happening withing big companies in the UK due to the low economy progress. However, Cable says that the UK's tax claimers should be more strict about this as medium and small companies are paying their taxes and loosing profit to paying tax as their demand is low and therefore it cannot be only payed by the costumers but mostly by the companies themselves.

This article describes the new tax on various medical wares such as replacement hips and defibrillators. The new excise tax is within the US, and the prediction is that it will raise $20 billion by 2019. The tax will affect smaller companies the most, and as much as 10% of small companies earnings per share may be paid in tax.

This article talks of the excise tax placed on replacement hips, implantable defibrillators and other FDA-approved wares. This was originally done to help fund the health laws expansion of insurance coverage. However, this tax is starting to hurt companies producing these goods as they are having to introduce cost cutting plans. "Stryker Corp. said in a statement Thursday that the $130 to $150 million in will owe next year could consume one-third of of its research and development budget." The tax is becoming a burden on companies as they must give the money to the government instead of their research funds.

This is a great show of how the government needs money and so, not out of spite for any business but out of a need for funding, they are considering putting a tax on a local Enterprise Car Rental franchise. Obviously, the owners are not happy with this and say that price would hurt them and the customers, which would only consist of out-of-towners and not the locals who want the downtown renovated in the first place. The suggestion they made, which seems fair to me, is to put an even smaller percentage tax on all restaurant's goods and services. This way there is less harm done to any single producer, because restaurants as a whole have a much lower inelasticity than car rentals in a single town, and any given customer, of which there would be many more for a restaurant, would not feel they were losing as much money to this tax. Plus, a tax on restaurants would force those citizens that wanted their community to look nicer to pitch in a little.

This article is a good example of how tax can be imposed for a reason. In this case the reason is to boost revenue of the government. Though, it is debated by the people in L.A, since this is a tax made for consumers to pay so that the market can thrive but on the same time provide the government with money in their time of crisis.

The article deals with the different wants of russian people. A lot of them prefer to drink beer rather than vodka. This means that more beer is sold. This influences the health of a lot of people. To stop this trend the government implemented a huge tax on beer. The tax rose by 200%. This shows that the government always tries to find a balance.

according to the article, increasing excise taxes, encouraging smoke-free public places,and reducing salt and trans fat in food might help decrease deaths from noninfectious diseases. It would make sense because, if excise taxes are imposed, demand will slightly fall. Also if smoke-free places are encouraged, non-smokers will not have to be exposed to smoke all the time.

You don't have to read much of this article to understand the gist of what the author is saying. As we all know, the business cycle fluctuates like a sin graph, except, at the same time, the real GDP steadily increases as more innovations are made the things can be done for cheaper. Paying attention to those ups and downs are important for governments because, when the downs occur, the government needs to put in more spending to cover for private industries and to try and stimulate the economy. However, what the US government has failed to do now-a-days is lower spending when the economy has built its way back up and above where it was before. This isn't because US citizens will start mass protests in the streets against a higher sales tax or less funding for the public education system, but because officials want to ignore the fundamental concept that, just like the economy went down before, so shall it in the future times.

This article is long but to sum it all up, it discusses "The idea: Reduce taxes, especially for the wealthy and corporations, and America's entrepreneurial fortunes will soar. The economy, unleashed from the drag of excess taxes, will grow. Government deficits will shrink."

the article talks about a change in the income tax paid by the highest bracket of the English economy; this means that all the money earned above £130,000 will have to pay 50p per pound (50%) rather than 40p per pound. Economists predict that the income change will not have any effect on the earnings as the income elasticity of the bracket of economy is 0.46.

Last month, the White House and labor unions announced an agreement to tax high-cost, employer-sponsored health insurance plans. Labor leaders say the proposal is too high a price to pay for the limited health care package they expect to emerge from Congress, therefore, there is really no support for this agreement.

This article shows an example of an excise tax that has been damaged firms. A new 2.3% ad valorem US excise tax on medical devices, is, in my opinion, a mistake. 1,170 jobs were cut from one company as a result, and production will be down. This means that fewer devices will be made at a higher price, and furthermore means that fewer of those who need the devices will be able to purchase them, and they will get them at a higher price.

The oil company ExxonMobil announced profits of 36 biollion us dollars, however according to the tax foundation the government had a income on this by 54 billion.

This article talks about the crisis in the UK, and how the stores keep on closing and will keep on closing if the government doesn't freeze rates by 2013. Therefore, this article is not about something that the government has done (putting taxes) but something it needs to do to help the market in the UK.

This article discusses the failed prediction from most economist regarding the future of governmental cuts and taxes. The eading is mst interesting, as you get insight to the reasoning behind the prediction, and also the reason why they failed, which is becase the Federal Reserve's unexpected numbers and interest rates.

economists thought higher taxes and government spendings were going to delay economic growth in the first quarter of the year, but economic data has so far proven them wrong.

This article discusses how the government is creating jobs because they want to help stimulate economic growth. There were many people people were unemployed "12.3m unemployed who have been without work for more than six weeks" and the creation of the jobs is due to the increase in taxes.

While there was a lot of economic lingo in here that I didn't completely understand, what I did pick up was the use of price increases to help the government make more money. The government makes its money off the financial interactions between households and firms. This is done through income tax, sales tax, etc. Starting to sound familiar? So, by increasing the price on diesel, the government ensures that large transactions will be made between the household and the firm, meaning they get a bigger chunk of dough. But the political motive behind this is that the government can now use the extras cash-money to fund public programs and what not for social benefit.

the article is talking about how ex-president Bush decided not to control the price of energy, although the white house wanted to control energy prices.

I think this article is good, because it shows both negative and positive externalities. Negative because the outcome of eating a lot of junkfood is something no government likes, and it eventually has a backlash on them because people can't work as well and the general health in the country drops. Because of this they want to make people eat less, and they could to it with a tax to change the equilibrium. This would make the quantity demanded closer to that wanted from the government. (In the article they did it by banning 16-ounce softs drinks) Can you see the positive side?

This article describes negative externalities in the oil business. This is a global problem and definitely one of the most debated topics in environmental contexts. 'The climate changes are harming the earth, a lot of it is claimed to be caused by burning of fossil fuels. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is a great example of the creation of a negative externality. The goal of getting more oil to fuel our lifestyle and make a profit for BP trumped any recognition of the massive economic and environmental damage that flowed from their blown out well. Is the cost of this mess going to turn up in the price of gasoline in the US? Probably not. Will it turn up in our tax bills? Probably yes.'

I found this article quite interesting as it explains negative externalities very well and gives examples to better understand it. It also goes on to state that one of negative externality that is very relevant to the article is the negative effects a product may have on the environment. It shows the reader that many gas companies are able to cut corners to make the product cheap and more desirable, but in the process it makes a mess of the environment. A popular example that they use to prove their point was the Gulf of Mexico Oil spill.

I bumped into this article as I was searching for negative externalities.The article describes negative externalities as general and in terms of oil spilling. As for that it also described the environmental issues and gaves examples from the Gulf of Mexico.