[fmobus]

Not sure why you are getting downvotes, you are absolutely right.

It's a positive outcome of economic science that procuders can't fully pass taxes to consumers. There's always some sort of division of the overall dead weight loss, and it's always proportional to that market's conditions (competition, market share, elasticity, etc). If a producer decides to try to fully pass the price, it's because they believe their costumers are inelastic or that competition will not be able to undercut them.

To put it another way: if companies were fully passing tax hikes onto the customer... then companies wouldn't be complaining about taxes!

[glimshe]

Companies will make less money as a result of the tax, but the consumer will also be paying for it through higher prices. Just because companies end paying a part of the tax, it doesn't mean that the consumer isn't paying.

Additionally, fewer people will enjoy the service which is bad for everyone. Arguably people will get to enjoy whatever the tax is funding, but will they want to?

[fmobus]

As I said:

> There's always some sort of division of the overall dead weight loss

My point is, a lot of people seem to think that the costumer _exclusively_ bears the cost of a tax hike. It is simply not true, positively so.

> Just because companies end paying a part of the tax, it doesn't mean that the consumer isn't paying.

That's tautological, unless there is a third entity that could be paying the remaining part of the tax.

> Additionally, fewer people will enjoy the service which is bad for everyone. Arguably people will get to enjoy whatever the tax is funding, but will they want to?

That's normative. I will not discuss preferences.