(V): "Grocery stores understand how low price / high volume will net greater profits than simply charging as much as they can get away with."

[ Right..... lol... ... ... No. In theory, yes... in reality... it depends. If the store knows it can charge more due to the likes of position... it will. Now adays loss leaders are more used. ]


Loss leaders can spice up the deal, but I think most people consider what the total cost of buying groceries will come to. It's all driven by competition, which btw is something governments don't have to contend with... they don't spend their own money, they spend yours.

Competition forces businesses to offer better deals than someone else, and what better way to drum up business than to charge less for the same thing? The higher volume comes into play when more people choose to buy from you instead of someone else. A lower profit per item can add up to the point where you end up with more overall profit than if you were to charge more per item. I'm not sure what you mean by "In theory, yes"... it's done all the time, and has been going on for a long time. Some people weren't happy about losing mom and pop stores to the larger chains, but so what? I don't know anyone who intentionally pays more for the same product they could get for a lot less somewhere else. Do you know anyone like that?

That wasn't my point though, I assumed it was a given how that works. My point was that anyone who understands how lowering a profit per item can translate into more overall profit in a business should also be able to understand how lowering taxes can have the effect of generating more taxable income.