Councilperson Dr. Jose Moreno proposes $1 gate tax for the DLR and other venues - Failed a second time, but still very much alive.

[October82]

Yes and we all understood it the first time you wrote it on the board professor.

I'm just trying to make sure we agree on the basics.

The final price is paid by the consumer. The price of the item is x the taxes added on at sale are y and the final price is z. x+y=z

Consumers pays the z price.

See professor I showed my work, do I get a gold star?

I'm glad you showed your work. It's important to do so because that's how we learn. But you only get credit for addressing the prompt.

No the consumer doesn't decide what to buy based on how much profit the company will get. That is ridiculous. And is not even relevant to this discussion.

I agree that it is ridiculous, which is why I'm surprised that you've maintained a position equivalent to that claim for at least a couple pages of back and forth now. It is imminently relevant. Your position is that it matters whether the price of a Disneyland ticket is paid to Disney or paid to Disney + Anaheim.

Because this tax isn't going in Disney's bank account and never was.

But whether the tax is paid by Disney or the consumer is exactly what it is at stake in this conversation. As I've mentioned a few times, it's fine to assert that Disney isn't paying whatever, if we are explicit that this is an assertion.

Your example of the car dealership is also not relevant to this discussion. Because 1. you can negotiate pricing on cars, you can't in a theme park, 2. because there is a commission involved which again is not the case with a theme park, and 3. because we aren't talking about the price of the good being raised or lowered in order for the company to make a profit or not.

I used car pricing as an example where the relationship between buyer and seller is more transparent. None of these differences are relevant, but they do illustrate that it doesn't matter to you or I whether the dollars we spend include some amount of tax or if the retail price is inclusive. To consumers, we see the price of items and decide whether we can or can not afford to pay that price for the good or service in question.

Let me use a better example. You stay in a hotel room. The price of the room is $200 per night. But there is an occupancy tax of 20% added to the price of the room set by the local government. So you don't pay $200 per night. You actually pay $240 per night. The price of the room didn't go up, its still $200 per night.

And if that tax was not present, up to some caveats, the hotel in question should raise their price to $240. You're willing to pay it, so why wouldn't they?

The hotelier didn't set the price of the room based on that tax, they didn't lower the price to $160.

The price the hotel owner should charge in this situation is $240 if market conditions will support that price. If they don't, the hotelier should charge less. If $240 is still below the value of the room (say on a busy weekend), the hotelier should charge more.

They set it based on the market of other hotels around them since all other hoteliers also have to charge the same occupancy tax. The tax is added on at the time they collect. The consumer is stuck paying the $240 per night if they want that room. The same applies to any entertainment venue affected by this tax. They will set the price based on the market, like you keep mentioning, not based on the tax.

Yep. And they will all set the price based on what the market will pay for it.

That is not what I'm saying at all.

It really is. It follows quite clearly from your arguments, and you've made positions like that explicit. Earlier you mentioned that Disney will raise prices on many items "imperceptibly", again, arguing that consumers don't care how much items cost.

The price of the ticket is going to be set

... by market conditions.

, the amount of taxes being collected is what will be going up.

which is a change in the effective operational cost.

And that in the end the consumer is going to end up paying more.

Not unless consumers would choose to pay that price regardless of whether the tax was imposed.

That is my whole point in this discussion.

And it is an intuitive position to hold, but not one that is true.

Which I think you ultimately agree with as well, if I pick up on where this post went.

Where this post ultimately went is explaining how markets and pricing actually work, because for all of the times you've described economics as simple (or naive in your words), you haven't actually made arguments that show you understand it.

No duh they don't have a literal pocket, its a metaphor I figured you got that.

I thought I did, but it has become increasingly clear that you use the metaphor more literally than you should. Your position reflects an understanding of corporate finances that assumes fixed assets and an ability to arbitrarily set market prices. That's largely true for most of us. If we took a pay cut, we'd pick up side work or find another job, but it doesn't work like that for firms.

And yes consumers, even me, do care about what they have to pay out of their pocket, again another metaphor. And the very fact that it might come out of my own metaphorical pocket is why I'm even having this debate with you. The larger question is whether it will affect the overall attendance of not just Disneyland but of all the businesses that will be affected by this tax. And my thought it yes it will, which again is also shortsighted by the proponents of this tax.

Okay. I'm personally happy to give a few dollars to the city of Anaheim that I would have otherwise been giving to Disney for my day in the parks. Government spending creates jobs and attracts investment too.

 

[Disney Irish]

I'm just trying to make sure we agree on the basics.




I'm glad you showed your work. It's important to do so because that's how we learn. But you only get credit for addressing the prompt.



I agree that it is ridiculous, which is why I'm surprised that you've maintained a position equivalent to that claim for at least a couple pages of back and forth now. It is imminently relevant. Your position is that it matters whether the price of a Disneyland ticket is paid to Disney or paid to Disney + Anaheim.



But whether the tax is paid by Disney or the consumer is exactly what it is at stake in this conversation. As I've mentioned a few times, it's fine to assert that Disney isn't paying whatever, if we are explicit that this is an assertion.



I used car pricing as an example where the relationship between buyer and seller is more transparent. None of these differences are relevant, but they do illustrate that it doesn't matter to you or I whether the dollars we spend include some amount of tax or if the retail price is inclusive. To consumers, we see the price of items and decide whether we can or can not afford to pay that price for the good or service in question.



And if that tax was not present, up to some caveats, the hotel in question should raise their price to $240. You're willing to pay it, so why wouldn't they?



The price the hotel owner should charge in this situation is $240 if market conditions will support that price. If they don't, the hotelier should charge less. If $240 is still below the value of the room (say on a busy weekend), the hotelier should charge more.



Yep. And they will all set the price based on what the market will pay for it.



It really is. It follows quite clearly from your arguments, and you've made positions like that explicit. Earlier you mentioned that Disney will raise prices on many items "imperceptibly", again, arguing that consumers don't care how much items cost.



... by market conditions.



which is a change in the effective operational cost.



Not unless consumers would choose to pay that price regardless of whether the tax was imposed.



And it is an intuitive position to hold, but not one that is true.



Where this post ultimately went is explaining how markets and pricing actually work, because for all of the times you've described economics as simple (or naive in your words), you haven't actually made arguments that show you understand it.



I thought I did, but it has become increasingly clear that you use the metaphor more literally than you should. Your position reflects an understanding of corporate finances that assumes fixed assets and an ability to arbitrarily set market prices. That's largely true for most of us. If we took a pay cut, we'd pick up side work or find another job, but it doesn't work like that for firms.



Okay. I'm personally happy to give a few dollars to the city of Anaheim that I would have otherwise been giving to Disney for my day in the parks. Government spending creates jobs and attracts investment too.

Well I'm not going to address this point by point. I'll just say that you yourself are asserting a lot as well. I'll admit yes I'm asserting that Disney isn't going to pay this new tax, if that will make you feel better and like you've accomplished something. But then you also have to admit that you are also asserting that if said tax was removed then business X, no matter what that business may be, would always charge more because the idea "why wouldn't they". Its more complex than that and you know it.

So lets just agree we're both asserting a lot here and call it a day.

I know that you want to come in and educate us all on this topic. But some of us actually understand this stuff better than you think we do. Some of us have been around this great big world of few times, and understand the nuances of both economics and politics. I really didn't want to get into a big economics debate with you. And that is why I chose to go simpler in the discussion. Because a larger economics debate is not really relevant to this thread or even this topic. While I understand what you were trying to get at, its more complex then even you were stating due to the politics involved. Bottom line the consumer is not going to want to pay a higher price based on newer taxes imposed.

Also I'm happy you're willing to give a few more dollars to Anaheim. However some of us don't want to be forced into a new tax for what amounts to a political stunt. Anaheim deserves better than that.

 

[DrAlice]

 

[October82]

Well I'm not going to address this point by point. I'll just say that you yourself are asserting a lot as well. I'll admit yes I'm asserting that Disney isn't going to pay this new tax, if that will make you feel better and like you've accomplished something.But then you also have to admit that you are also asserting that if said tax was removed then business X, no matter what that business may be, would always charge more because the idea "why wouldn't they". Its more complex than that and you know it.

So lets just agree we're both asserting a lot here and call it a day.

I know that you want to come in and educate us all on this topic. But some of us actually understand this stuff better than you think we do. Some of us have been around this great big world of few times, and understand the nuances of both economics and politics. I really didn't want to get into a big economics debate with you. And that is why I chose to go simpler in the discussion. Because a larger economics debate is not really relevant to this thread or even this topic. While I understand what you were trying to get at, its more complex then even you were stating due to the politics involved. Bottom line the consumer is not going to want to pay a higher price based on newer taxes imposed.

Also I'm happy you're willing to give a few more dollars to Anaheim. However some of us don't want to be forced into a new tax for what amounts to a political stunt. Anaheim deserves better than that.

The issue in this thread, and the reason that I put time into responding to all of this while trying to aim at clarity, is that we need to be clear what is asserted and what is known for good reasons.

As others alluded to before our discussion, conversations in this thread are often only had from a pro-corporate perspective by people involved in Anaheim politics. I respect them for their views, and to the contrary, I don't assume that anyone on this forum is anything less than well educated and nuanced in their understanding. However, because there is so much agreement between the few posters who engage in these threads, we don't see what are really assertions on ideological grounds that should be questioned and often rejected. That ideology is a pro-corporate one, which sees companies like Disney as unambiguously beneficial to the cities that they operate in and generous to their employees. It fits with our everyday understanding, perhaps from "many trips around the sun", but it isn't a correct one. The rhetoric is anti-taxation and often anti-labor, and presented as if there is no sensible economic arguments against those positions. Recognizing and stating that these assertions are assertions, and presenting the underlying economic theory as to why these assertions are questionable at best and very often false, does not amount to simply a counter-assertion. It's trying to have a fact based discussion. When that works and when our discussions are productive, we ask questions of those assertions and make progress towards a consensus that we can both agree to. Unfortunately that didn't happen here. The conversation ran its course awhile ago, and it seemed full of misunderstandings from the beginning.

Taxes are a sensible policy solution to problems related to externalities and used effectively at every level of government for that purpose. I don't see that as a "political stunt", but politicians do many things for reasons both good and bad.

 

[el_super]

Taxes are a sensible policy solution to problems related to externalities and used effectively at every level of government for that purpose. I don't see that as a "political stunt", but politicians do many things for reasons both good and bad.

I agree. The more troubling idea behind what gets posted here, is that even the idea of a tax seems like a threat, and beyond any reasonable discussion. Something that should be mocked and ridiculed.

I think we all realize that taxes, applied without discretion, can have a negative impact, but the only way we will know for sure is if more research is done, and the dialogue is allowed to start.

And fwiw, in case anyone doesn't realize, Walt Disney World's tickets are taxed, and even in some instances are cheaper than Disneyland's.

 

[Disney Irish]

The issue in this thread, and the reason that I put time into responding to all of this while trying to aim at clarity, is that we need to be clear what is asserted and what is known for good reasons.

As others alluded to before our discussion, conversations in this thread are often only had from a pro-corporate perspective by people involved in Anaheim politics. I respect them for their views, and to the contrary, I don't assume that anyone on this forum is anything less than well educated and nuanced in their understanding. However, because there is so much agreement between the few posters who engage in these threads, we don't see what are really assertions on ideological grounds that should be questioned and often rejected. That ideology is a pro-corporate one, which sees companies like Disney as unambiguously beneficial to the cities that they operate in and generous to their employees. It fits with our everyday understanding, perhaps from "many trips around the sun", but it isn't a correct one. The rhetoric is anti-taxation and often anti-labor, and presented as if there is no sensible economic arguments against those positions. Recognizing and stating that these assertions are assertions, and presenting the underlying economic theory as to why these assertions are questionable at best and very often false, does not amount to simply a counter-assertion. It's trying to have a fact based discussion. When that works and when our discussions are productive, we ask questions of those assertions and make progress towards a consensus that we can both agree to. Unfortunately that didn't happen here. The conversation ran its course awhile ago, and it seemed full of misunderstandings from the beginning.

Taxes are a sensible policy solution to problems related to externalities and used effectively at every level of government for that purpose. I don't see that as a "political stunt", but politicians do many things for reasons both good and bad.

 

[truecoat]

View attachment 489976

It's more like this...