SUV Owners Say "Not So Fast"

[Silveredwings]

I've seen this pattern before: a glutonous corporation sees something that interferes with its market domination and so concocts fear among its own customers of something worse happening. They claim that the only reason they're informing all the sheeple is pure altruism. Recent blatant example: why did the oil companies spend over $100M to defeat a tax on oil companies last November on a California ballot initiative? They said that it would only cause gas prices to go up at the pump. Why would they care? Because contrary to what they say, it would've hurt them more than it would the consumers. That's why they spent over $100M spreading that lie.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Yup. The ballot initiative specifically stated that the increase in tax could not be passed on to the consumer, but there were still ads funded by guess who stating that it would raise prices. Even though by virtue of it's own construction it would be illegal if that happened. Course, from a financial point of view, it could've taken as much as six billion out of guess who's pockets, so spending a hundred million fighting it was probably a drop in the bucket. 1/60th of what could've been so to speak.

[Silveredwings]

The tobacco industry did this successfully for about a hundred years. It's not their fault their product killed people...all the honest jobs were taken.

[Bill in Houston]

Originally Posted by omgwtfbyobbq

Yup. The ballot initiative specifically stated that the increase in tax could not be passed on to the consumer, but there were still ads funded by guess who stating that it would raise prices. Even though by virtue of it's own construction it would be illegal if that happened.

I don't know the specific construction of the law, but it seems to me that if you make it illegal to pass on a tax increase, then you put some marginal operators out of business, which would decrease supply, and would bump up prices. Just an idea.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by Bill in Houston

I don't know the specific construction of the law, but it seems to me that if you make it illegal to pass on a tax increase, then you put some marginal operators out of business, which would decrease supply, and would bump up prices. Just an idea.

CA was going to get some of these windfall profits we've been seeing, since they didn't have the same agreements other states had with oil co's regarding land use and whatnot. To avoid hurting marginal operators, the magnitude of the tax was proportional to the amount of profit the co's made, so a marginal operator wouldn't see more than what they see now, and one making $$$ would have to pay up. What was amazing to me was the magnitude of cash spent, as much as one or both of the candidates spent on the previous election iirc. But, since it could've been up to six billion in taxation, I suppose a hundred million is a drop in the bucket.

[Bill in Houston]

interesting...