New overtime laws

[Jhhnn]

It's confusing by design, Chadder007.

Some folks at the bottom are actually helped by the new rules, although others more in the middle will be harmed. Given the source, I'd suggest that, on balance, more will be hurt than helped...

It's pretty axiomatic that when the current republican leadership makes a change, it benefits business rather than labor. basic no-brainer...

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate


Not necessarily. Unions have been able to inflate wages on numerous occassions. Of course this causes other irregularities in the market, and a negative effect is achieved. Basically, the company just hires less workers since each worker's pay/output ratio becomes worse.

True - but by the same market theory, the union worers are still being paid what they are worth.

Ok, so if the government declares tomorrow that all workers will be paid no less than $100 an hour, they are being paid what they are worth? That's poppycock. The government cannot change equilibrium prices, only consumers can do that.

Thus:

Changing the market structure will most likely change the equilibrium value of labour, which is not nearly as easy to pin down as some people think.

And the fallacy of:

If your wages were not over the equilibrium price for your labor then I guarantee you that the market will eventually pay you what your labor is worth.

This is not a fallacy. You perceive labor markets to be somehow magically different than markets for any other thing in the economy. This is simply false. Companies, employers and governments CANNOT set wages. Consumers and investors ultimately set the price of everything. Any deviation from these prices will produce negative externalities in the market and absolutely no net benefit will result.

The change in the playing field changes the value of labour, and has no merit in determining whether the current wages are fair or not, given current market conditions. As Winston says, he has been playing by the rules, and has financial commitments based on his position WRT those rules. Changing the rules has fallout effects that may (or may not) seriously affect any given individual.

You have just identified one of the major problems with government. When the rules are constantly changing at the whim of bureaucrats and politicians people are harmed. Look at the tax industry for instance. There is talk of switching to a national sales tax, if that happens all those tax attorneys, CPAs and preparers are going to be out of work. Many of them have spent a good portion of their lives studying the tax code and laws, then suddenly the government changes the rules and they are out of luck. This is actually a net benefit to society as a whole, but the father with 5 children trying to put food on the table isn't going to care about that.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
So what your asserting here Dis, in part, is that OT laws require employers to work each employee less and employ a greater quantity of employees to compensate. Hope I got that right, because if that were true then offering OT to all the minimum wage blokes will actually lead to higher employment rates, correct?

I don't think anyone has replied to this notion. I'll give it a bump because I'm keenly interested in whether or not forum members think that this OT law could pad the employment figures in favor of the current admin. without actually changing per capita income. And yes I'm a dyed-in-the-wool knee-jerk skeptic of Bush Inc.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate


Not necessarily. Unions have been able to inflate wages on numerous occassions. Of course this causes other irregularities in the market, and a negative effect is achieved. Basically, the company just hires less workers since each worker's pay/output ratio becomes worse.

True - but by the same market theory, the union worers are still being paid what they are worth.

Ok, so if the government declares tomorrow that all workers will be paid no less than $100 an hour, they are being paid what they are worth? That's poppycock. The government cannot change equilibrium prices, only consumers can do that.

Yes, just like minimum wage laws today; if they act as a price floor, they force employers to hire only if the worker's marginal value is greater than or equal to the wage. At $100/hr, most businesses would simply close, and most that stayed open would hire a small number of staff.

Businesses are in fact much more free to respond to market conditions than are employees, as businesses can always simply close their doors.

Thus:

Changing the market structure will most likely change the equilibrium value of labour, which is not nearly as easy to pin down as some people think.

And the fallacy of:

If your wages were not over the equilibrium price for your labor then I guarantee you that the market will eventually pay you what your labor is worth.

This is not a fallacy. You perceive labor markets to be somehow magically different than markets for any other thing in the economy. This is simply false. Companies, employers and governments CANNOT set wages. Consumers and investors ultimately set the price of everything. Any deviation from these prices will produce negative externalities in the market and absolutely no net benefit will result.

Yes, this is a fallacy. His equilibrium income might be 60K under the current system, and 50K under the new one. This would not mean he was being overpaid before, which is what you're trying to suggest. Try again.

The change in the playing field changes the value of labour, and has no merit in determining whether the current wages are fair or not, given current market conditions. As Winston says, he has been playing by the rules, and has financial commitments based on his position WRT those rules. Changing the rules has fallout effects that may (or may not) seriously affect any given individual.

You have just identified one of the major problems with government.

No, I've just identified one of the problems with the outcomes of market theory in a REAL world.

When the rules are constantly changing at the whim of bureaucrats and politicians people are harmed. Look at the tax industry for instance. There is talk of switching to a national sales tax, if that happens all those tax attorneys, CPAs and preparers are going to be out of work. Many of them have spent a good portion of their lives studying the tax code and laws, then suddenly the government changes the rules and they are out of luck. This is actually a net benefit to society as a whole, but the father with 5 children trying to put food on the table isn't going to care about that.

Not if they are halfway intelligent; they will only be out of work as tax specialists. There are always trade-offs to be made between long-run efficiency and short-run stability. These are particularly poignant in a system where large sudden changes do not result in new equilibriums, they result in massive economic instability because people have needs and commitments that do not disappear simply because their economic situation changes. And even at that there's no way you could ever make a uniform sales tax account for all the realities of the American economy, so I suspect the talk is exactly that. You're picking and choosing again from market theory, by assuming a simple tax will automatically have better effects.

Hint: Don't argue with me as though I am an anti-market socialist zealot; for one thing, I'm not one, and for another you will keep making serious mistakes in your analysis, many of which I'm liable to notice.

I recommend a good long night with a book on externalities and efficiency before you claim that a national sales tax is the most efficient method of taxation.

I recommend another good long night with a book on market theory and how changing the rules, or holding market power, can BOTH affect the equilibrium value of any good, including labour.

Edit - irrelevent addition; you'll get to read all about it below anyway.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

See you Thursday.

What's Thursday???

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

See you Thursday.

What's Thursday???

Thursday is two days from now, after reading about externalities and changing the rules of engagement in market theory.

 

[jjzelinski]

I think you'll find that level of humor a thread killer I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
I think you'll find that level of humor a thread killer I have no idea what you're talking about.

You're probably right. Given how far this one has strayed from the original topic I'm guessing it's pretty much run its course anyway.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I was all over the dol website today & still dont have a clear understanding of wether or not nurses are affected.

It says RN are exempt because they're mostly hourly employees, not salaried.

Here's a DOL link to some info: Web seminar

Of course if you're covered by a union, the new laws mean squat...

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Crimson
Actually my company just sent out an email saying that some non-exempt employees were going to be reclassified as exempt so they can receive overtime because of this new law..

Is their pay be re-adjusted down as well???

Let's see the wording of that E-mail.

They specifically said their salary WOULD NOT be adjusted..

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Somehow I found that post confusing. Are you say that your company intends to classify a group of people as exempt from OT and therefore are entitled to it? Help me out here.

They are saying people currently NOT getting overtime WILL get overtime. The terminology is a little strange with exempt and non-exempt.. but they also specifically said anyone going from salary back to hourly WILL NOT receive a pay cut.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Crimson
Actually my company just sent out an email saying that some non-exempt employees were going to be reclassified as exempt so they can receive overtime because of this new law..

Is their pay be re-adjusted down as well???

Let's see the wording of that E-mail.

They specifically said their salary WOULD NOT be adjusted..

OK, let's see if they actually get any overtime now.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Crimson
Actually my company just sent out an email saying that some non-exempt employees were going to be reclassified as exempt so they can receive overtime because of this new law..

Is their pay be re-adjusted down as well???

Let's see the wording of that E-mail.

They specifically said their salary WOULD NOT be adjusted..

OK, let's see if they actually get any overtime now.

People can and do get overtime at my company. When I worked in our Operations dept several years ago I got overtime nearly every week.. I know it happens, because I received it. They need people to cover shifts, so they pay overtime. I could get you a job here if you want..

 

[Anubis08]

I think the law is great. I have not heard all the specifics so please inform me if I am wrong, but it does not say people who make over the top limit don't have to get payed overtime, it is just a choice. As for hiring more employees, it would be more expensive in the grand scheme of things as more employees result in different rules and regulations and more total csots for insurance and such. People below the limit need to get overtime because it is usually these lower jobs that screw people the most. If someone is making over what ever the ceiling is, I believe something in the neighborhood of $100,000, i don't think they need the extra anyhow, but it would be a sorry company who dropped overtime simply because they didn't have to pay it anymore. But it is all about the dollar in business these days.
Here is a question though (it may not be valid if I have the wrong take on the changes):

If a person makes over the ceiling (refer to above)with overtime and below it without, doese he still get it? If he does then it screws someone who makes just over the ceiling which might make jobs give you a pay raise to pay you less. It is perplexing, but even with all the analysts in the world guessing, nobody will know the true outcome before enough time has passed and the changes are fully known.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate


Not necessarily. Unions have been able to inflate wages on numerous occassions. Of course this causes other irregularities in the market, and a negative effect is achieved. Basically, the company just hires less workers since each worker's pay/output ratio becomes worse.

True - but by the same market theory, the union worers are still being paid what they are worth.

Ok, so if the government declares tomorrow that all workers will be paid no less than $100 an hour, they are being paid what they are worth? That's poppycock. The government cannot change equilibrium prices, only consumers can do that.

Yes, just like minimum wage laws today; if they act as a price floor, they force employers to hire only if the worker's marginal value is greater than or equal to the wage. At $100/hr, most businesses would simply close, and most that stayed open would hire a small number of staff.

Businesses are in fact much more free to respond to market conditions than are employees, as businesses can always simply close their doors.

Thus:

Changing the market structure will most likely change the equilibrium value of labour, which is not nearly as easy to pin down as some people think.

And the fallacy of:

If your wages were not over the equilibrium price for your labor then I guarantee you that the market will eventually pay you what your labor is worth.

This is not a fallacy. You perceive labor markets to be somehow magically different than markets for any other thing in the economy. This is simply false. Companies, employers and governments CANNOT set wages. Consumers and investors ultimately set the price of everything. Any deviation from these prices will produce negative externalities in the market and absolutely no net benefit will result.

Yes, this is a fallacy. His equilibrium income might be 60K under the current system, and 50K under the new one. This would not mean he was being overpaid before, which is what you're trying to suggest. Try again.

Do you have difficulty comprehending information? Governments CANNOT change equilibrium prices by edict. Equilibrium prices are set by supply & demand. The same goes for labor and everything else in the whole economy. No equilibrium price for ANYONE'S labor will change as a result of any law being passed, outside of artificial industries created by government. For instance, if the government passes a law eliminating the income tax obviously the equilibrium price for income tax attorney's would be affected, or if tomorrow all guns were outlawed gunsmiths would be earning a lot less. However, assuming that someone is not in an industry as such, government laws cannot change the equilibrium price for someone's labor. The government may force businesses to pay inflated wages, but like I said this would not be an equilibrium price, it would be an arbitrary price. What happens when the equilibrium price is not allowed to settle? Shortages, surpluses and negative externalities, plain and simple. This is econ 101.

The change in the playing field changes the value of labour, and has no merit in determining whether the current wages are fair or not, given current market conditions. As Winston says, he has been playing by the rules, and has financial commitments based on his position WRT those rules. Changing the rules has fallout effects that may (or may not) seriously affect any given individual.

You have just identified one of the major problems with government.

No, I've just identified one of the problems with the outcomes of market theory in a REAL world.

When the rules are constantly changing at the whim of bureaucrats and politicians people are harmed. Look at the tax industry for instance. There is talk of switching to a national sales tax, if that happens all those tax attorneys, CPAs and preparers are going to be out of work. Many of them have spent a good portion of their lives studying the tax code and laws, then suddenly the government changes the rules and they are out of luck. This is actually a net benefit to society as a whole, but the father with 5 children trying to put food on the table isn't going to care about that.

Not if they are halfway intelligent; they will only be out of work as tax specialists. There are always trade-offs to be made between long-run efficiency and short-run stability. These are particularly poignant in a system where large sudden changes do not result in new equilibriums, they result in massive economic instability because people have needs and commitments that do not disappear simply because their economic situation changes. And even at that there's no way you could ever make a uniform sales tax account for all the realities of the American economy, so I suspect the talk is exactly that. You're picking and choosing again from market theory, by assuming a simple tax will automatically have better effects.

Ok, so why have Harvard economists projected that the economy would double under the Fair Tax plan in a relatively short amount of time? Do you have any idea what the compliance cost of the current tax code is? It is 15 cents on the dollar of every dollar paid. That is literally a 15% tax on all the tax revenue that is being paid right now. I happen to be a skeptic of the Fair Tax, because I think that like all things in government it would simply, over time become as Draconian as the income tax. Nonetheless, I know for a fact that if it were implemented as planned it would be a far more efficient tax system, based on comparison of compliance costs alone.

Hint: Don't argue with me as though I am an anti-market socialist zealot; for one thing, I'm not one, and for another you will keep making serious mistakes in your analysis, many of which I'm liable to notice.

I recommend a good long night with a book on externalities and efficiency before you claim that a national sales tax is the most efficient method of taxation.

I recommend another good long night with a book on market theory and how changing the rules, or holding market power, can BOTH affect the equilibrium value of any good, including labour.

Edit - irrelevent addition; you'll get to read all about it below anyway.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Do you have difficulty comprehending information? Governments CANNOT change equilibrium prices by edict. Equilibrium prices are set by supply & demand. The same goes for labor and everything else in the whole economy. No equilibrium price for ANYONE'S labor will change as a result of any law being passed, outside of artificial industries created by government. For instance, if the government passes a law eliminating the income tax obviously the equilibrium price for income tax attorney's would be affected, or if tomorrow all guns were outlawed gunsmiths would be earning a lot less. However, assuming that someone is not in an industry as such, government laws cannot change the equilibrium price for someone's labor. The government may force businesses to pay inflated wages, but like I said this would not be an equilibrium price, it would be an arbitrary price. What happens when the equilibrium price is not allowed to settle? Shortages, surpluses and negative externalities, plain and simple. This is econ 101.

Even in Econ 101 I thought they taught you this much - if the government sets a price floor (or ceiling) the market adjusts accordingly. So even at $100/hr minimour um wage, that would be the equilibrium price of labour (that or something higher, which is highly unlikely). There would simply be very little labour employed. NO ONE can force a firm to pay an inflated wage to employees, because they ALWAYS have the option of cutting staff or simply closing their doors entirely if they cannot make money in current market conditions.

More importantly, I did not say the government could directly set an equilibrium price under most conditions; what they can do is change the rules of enagagement, which in turn changes the price as firms and individuals react to the change.

Ok, so why have Harvard economists projected that the economy would double under the Fair Tax plan in a relatively short amount of time? Do you have any idea what the compliance cost of the current tax code is? It is 15 cents on the dollar of every dollar paid. That is literally a 15% tax on all the tax revenue that is being paid right now. I happen to be a skeptic of the Fair Tax, because I think that like all things in government it would simply, over time become as Draconian as the income tax. Nonetheless, I know for a fact that if it were implemented as planned it would be a far more efficient tax system, based on comparison of compliance costs alone.

It might be possible to simplify the tax system and till accomplish what it needs to accomplish. The fact that nearly everyone making more than about $30K a year seems to benefit from paying someone else to do their taxes suggests that it is indeed a very arcane system. This doesn't mean a national sales tax, which you seemed somewhat excite about, can account for the realities of the economy.

An efficient market economy needs proxies for a number of interested parties who normally don't sit at the bargaining table. This is because of the need to consider externalities (positive and negative) when a transaction takes place between two willing agents, but affects other things, outside the bounds of their contract.

Simple examples:

1. I buy a large SUV, which does not get very good gas mileage, and has large CO2 and other emissions. I reach a fair price with the dealer. Other interested parties include the roads department, and the environmental department. I create externalities, that need to be incorporated into my original contract price if the market is to be efficient. How do you cover this? We've just created two necessary, but unfortunately complex taxes.

2. You give $1000 to a women's shelter. The shelter is able to provide two months of one-night stays to women in need, hot meals, etc. There is a net effect on the government's need to provide similar programs through taxes. Guess what? You just created yourself a tax reduction in an efficient economy.

Aattempts to standardize taxes so that they do not need to be made up from scratch for each person have failed, because beaurocracyis simply not able to fulfill its promise of creating efficiency through process. This doesn't mean some form of flat tax is the best plan though.

 

[joshw10]

For what it's worth, the only job I have had as an employee was working as a Best Buy sales drone. The hourly schedules were done by computer, and sometimes an employee was given 2 or 3 hours of overtime. The employee was expected to point out this "mistake" to the manager so the overtime could be removed. If this employee didnt do this, and worked their scheduled overtime hours forcing Best Buy to (OMG!) pay them an extra $10 for that week, they would get a scolding from the manager.

 

[AEB]

you are wrong about the wage thing chord. all raising minimum wage to 100 would do is cause inflation and in essence not change anything regarding the equalibrium. IE 8/hr would now be seen as 100/hr. this is one reason why 1k+ yen =1 USD

But to be off topic i dont support federally mandated minimum wage and this OT crap should be left to states if it is going to be regulated at all.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: AEB
you are wrong about the wage thing chord. all raising minimum wage to 100 would do is cause inflation and in essence not change anything regarding the equalibrium. IE 8/hr would now be seen as 100/hr. this is one reason why 1k+ yen =1 USD

But to be off topic i dont support federally mandated minimum wage and this OT crap should be left to states if it is going to be regulated at all.

No, inflation would increase to the extent that increasing the velocity of money was the best compromise; i.e. the best way to cope with the new reality of the economy. The real result is that a minimum wage of $100 would be ridiculous. It would in fact be even worse if it were left up to the states; if one state increased its minimum wage, the already limited mitigating effects of inflation would be spread accross ALL the states, by arbitrage, and the damage to the economy would be even greater

Remember - in the real world, nominal variables have real effects.

I'm only taking this one step at a time - the end of the discussion is that the idea of economic equilibrium requires so many assumptions as to virtually guarantee that the long-run outcome of large changes in the rules of engagement is a great big "who knows?". Based on what economists know so far, we aren't in equilibrium now, never have been, and never will be. Equilibrium is a useful concept for examining the state of markets, but it shouldn't be relied on normatively; it's more of a descriptive tool.

 

[AEB]

i meant the OT left up to the states so they could mold to the needs of their workers. i dont support minimum wage of any kind i like the idea of a free market. and i still say setting minimum wage at 100 would cause inflation. our curren=cy would be devalued and overtime the cost of good would increase not becuase they are worth more but because everyone is "making" more. so if a milk company has to pay its employess 100 bucks an hour a gallon would simply jump in price to refelct the cost to make it and this would cause the dollar to lose buying power.

Im not saying that is ALL that will happen if min wage was increased so dramatically but im fairly certain inflation would occur becuase of the increase in price of goods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation

 

[3chordcharlie]

Sorry - misread that bit

I don't support minimum wage laws because in reality they don't affect the poor; you can make double the minimum wage in many states and in Canada, and still not make a living wage, so they don't accomplish very much. And raising the minimum wage to a living wage would result in extreme unemployment for low-skilled part-time and student employees who don't need to make enough to live on, because they are working for extra, or spending money.

But inflation responds too slowly to changes in things like labour costs; even if it eventually caught up, it wouldn't do so until after it had caused a period of extreme labour instability. I guess I'm interpretting inflation as being a relatively unimportant consequence of the wage-change, with unemployment being the major short-run response. I have no idea what would happen in the long-run in a case like htis one. For a $1 minimum wage increase (i.e. small change), I would expect a very small inflationary response, coupled with a very small decrease in employment in the long run.

But to put this in the hands of decision-makers, if you ran a convenience store and had to pay your night-guy $100/hr starting tomorrow, would you raise the price of everything, or simply close for that 8-hour period? I know what I would do.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: loki8481
doesn't affect me at all.

but if I were still at my previous job, where I got paid hourly and often worked 45-50 hours/week, I'd be losing my overtime pay.

The funny thing about this statement is that you assume that you would lose it. The law passed just doesn't force the company to pay and many companies know that if they stop paying it, they will lose the employees to another company that still pays it.

 

[EXman]

I'm a conservative and I think Bush F-ed up on this one bad! I dunno how this can be a allowed or even thought of to start with. Honestly this is retarded.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: EXman
I'm a conservative and I think Bush F-ed up on this one bad! I dunno how this can be a allowed or even thought of to start with. Honestly this is retarded.

Poor guy. Bush didn't F- up at all. Where have you been, the Republicans are not true "Conservatives" anymore, that's why their called NeoCons. The Club Party you used to know and love has left the building.

(By the way the guy that coined the phrase for Elvis "Elvis has left the building" passed away this week)

This "Act" is super Pro-Business all the way so it should not be a surprise at all.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Do you have difficulty comprehending information? Governments CANNOT change equilibrium prices by edict. Equilibrium prices are set by supply & demand. The same goes for labor and everything else in the whole economy. No equilibrium price for ANYONE'S labor will change as a result of any law being passed, outside of artificial industries created by government. For instance, if the government passes a law eliminating the income tax obviously the equilibrium price for income tax attorney's would be affected, or if tomorrow all guns were outlawed gunsmiths would be earning a lot less. However, assuming that someone is not in an industry as such, government laws cannot change the equilibrium price for someone's labor. The government may force businesses to pay inflated wages, but like I said this would not be an equilibrium price, it would be an arbitrary price. What happens when the equilibrium price is not allowed to settle? Shortages, surpluses and negative externalities, plain and simple. This is econ 101.

Even in Econ 101 I thought they taught you this much - if the government sets a price floor (or ceiling) the market adjusts accordingly. So even at $100/hr minimour um wage, that would be the equilibrium price of labour (that or something higher, which is highly unlikely). There would simply be very little labour employed. NO ONE can force a firm to pay an inflated wage to employees, because they ALWAYS have the option of cutting staff or simply closing their doors entirely if they cannot make money in current market conditions.

More importantly, I did not say the government could directly set an equilibrium price under most conditions; what they can do is change the rules of enagagement, which in turn changes the price as firms and individuals react to the change.

Ok, so why have Harvard economists projected that the economy would double under the Fair Tax plan in a relatively short amount of time? Do you have any idea what the compliance cost of the current tax code is? It is 15 cents on the dollar of every dollar paid. That is literally a 15% tax on all the tax revenue that is being paid right now. I happen to be a skeptic of the Fair Tax, because I think that like all things in government it would simply, over time become as Draconian as the income tax. Nonetheless, I know for a fact that if it were implemented as planned it would be a far more efficient tax system, based on comparison of compliance costs alone.

It might be possible to simplify the tax system and till accomplish what it needs to accomplish. The fact that nearly everyone making more than about $30K a year seems to benefit from paying someone else to do their taxes suggests that it is indeed a very arcane system. This doesn't mean a national sales tax, which you seemed somewhat excite about, can account for the realities of the economy.

An efficient market economy needs proxies for a number of interested parties who normally don't sit at the bargaining table. This is because of the need to consider externalities (positive and negative) when a transaction takes place between two willing agents, but affects other things, outside the bounds of their contract.

Simple examples:

1. I buy a large SUV, which does not get very good gas mileage, and has large CO2 and other emissions. I reach a fair price with the dealer. Other interested parties include the roads department, and the environmental department. I create externalities, that need to be incorporated into my original contract price if the market is to be efficient. How do you cover this? We've just created two necessary, but unfortunately complex taxes.

2. You give $1000 to a women's shelter. The shelter is able to provide two months of one-night stays to women in need, hot meals, etc. There is a net effect on the government's need to provide similar programs through taxes. Guess what? You just created yourself a tax reduction in an efficient economy.

Aattempts to standardize taxes so that they do not need to be made up from scratch for each person have failed, because beaurocracyis simply not able to fulfill its promise of creating efficiency through process. This doesn't mean some form of flat tax is the best plan though.

I suggest you look up the definition of
equilibrium price, and be sure to click the definition of market price. Once again, equilibrium price has nothing to do with government edict.