The main reason that a government imposes a tax on fossil fuels is to try and correct for the negative externality (pollution) which is produced when they are consumed. Without the tax there would be a market failure as car owners would be over consuming petrol as they are not being charged for the damage to the environment. There are 3 key aspects to this question which are; those that lose from a reduction, those that gain from a reduction and finally at what level the overall price for petrol was before the tax reduction. The major argument for maintaining the level of taxation on petrol and diesel is to protect the environment. When the social costs of consuming a good are higher than the private costs, there is said to be a negative externality.
This believes that the import from other countries results in damaging the local industry and thus negatively impacts the job market, is only one side of the argument. Imports also create and increase jobs in the industries, which are importing products. The imports from other countries may result in changing the consumption of the employment but there is very minimal impact on the overall employment level (Mankiw,
… On top of that, this is going to increase personal responsibility, personal accountability we shouldn’t be subsidizing people’s addiction.” It may be wrong for people who don’t pass the drug test and get declined welfare but they could always consider rehab, get clean, and then reapply and get accepted. It just isn’t right for people who work hard for money and for it to be going to somebody’s childish acts. Many people are for it and some are not. Some people think that it is a waste of time and feel like people shouldn’t be drug tested because that’s even more of the tax dollars wasted, but if you really look at the big picture of all of this that’s not true. Everyone who works has too take a drug test even if its a simple job, so what makes people think they are better and shouldn’t have to take a drug test and if they fail then they don’t get their checks.
This profit margin made the risk worth taking for many, resulting in the government losing money due to be not paying duty tax. Pitt saw this problem and decided to reduce the level of duty tax of these products, in the Commutation Act of 1784. In addition, he also amended the Hovering Act of 1780, meaning that officials could now search ships, therefore making smuggling a lot more difficult. Furthermore, to encourage legitimate trade, Pitt introduced ‘Bonded Warehouses’ which allowed legitimate traders to store their goods in these warehouses tax-free as long as they were planning to export these to another country. Although the problem of smuggling had to be overcome, exportation in Britain was booming.
Point #2: Tariffs protect American jobs and wages. (Points: 13) I find this position to be valid. Protective tariffs are designed to raise the retail price of imported products so that domestic goods are more competitively priced (Nickels, McHugh & McHugh, 2008, p. 76). Therefore, if products are competitively priced then the consumer will be more likely to purchase domestic products instead of imports. Since consumers will be more likely to support American vendors, this will keep the American businesses running and not force them to cut costs to compete with imports.
People who have high income don’t always worry about the price of products because they can afford it and in result don’t think a second about shoplifting. This being known the author wanted to target to a low income audience because they could relate to the author and be able to understand her point more. The message or the purpose that the author is trying to send to the low income audience is that they should not have to spend their hard earn money but instead shoplift as a way of protesting to big corporations to show them that they need to lower prices or they will end up losing more profit than actually lowering their
BP and Consolidation of the Oil Industry, 1998-2002 Executive Summary BP should sell its business and start a new business, a clean energy production, because it would lose profits from oil supply. Oil industry had not developed in perfect competition; oil price was easily controlled since oil industry was oligopoly, many consumers exist and the government protected oil industry from competition. However, oil industry is facing perfect competition; oligopoly formation of oil industry would come to perfect competition because OPEC started apart from each other. This perfect competition tends to be price competition since oil is commodity. To maximize the profit, competitors would increase supply with low prices, and the government changed regulations that could trigger to reduce oil consumption and strengthen substitutes.
Reiman argues that dealers charge high process because the drug is illegal and they are taking a risk. In order to pay the high prices addicts resort to crime. The point is, if harmless drugs such as marijuana were legal, we would have less people under the control of the criminal justice system increasing their chances of employment. One understands that it is not reasonable to legalize all drugs, especially those that are extremely addictive. However, the addictions must be treated as medical problems and the addicted must be treated as patients rather than criminals.
This also includes the affordability range, and it stops unnecessary consumption, limits price growth to avoid excess societal burden. Government intervention varies with low- income developing countries to industrialized countries. In low income developing country, government’s focus is “how to improve access to their people”, whereas in industrialized nations direct some of their focus on cost-containment. Subsequently, government intervention also faces imperfections. It becomes complicated due to political manipulations.
It varies among products because some products may be more essential to the consumer. Products that are necessities or ‘need’ are more insensitive to price changes because no matter what happen, consumers would continue buying these products despite prices increases, even though, consumers might buy less, but overall, it’s least affected by these changes compared to the products that may not be necessary in daily life. Elasticity of demand for Californians for reduction in price from: I. £18 to £16 Price elasticity = %