should shelf prices include tax?

[parrisw]

I think that taxes should NEVER be hidden.

IF you never see it, you don't think about it. The .gov just jacks it up more and more, and you don't really realize it. Just thinking it is "cost of doing business" sort of thing.

You know, when income tax started out in 1917 I think (maybe a year or two off), you didn't get the tax garnished directly from your wages. Instead, the .gov got paid their 1% of your net income (yeah, that's right: congress ratified the 16th amendment with 1% income tax rate) when you filed your 1040 form. At some point in time, they changed the system to where the tax was taken out during each paycheck. That way, the .gov got money in a more steady pattern, and effectively confused the working masses on what was being paid. Then, .gov proceeded to crank those tax rates up, since you HAD to pay it, and couldn't control it as easily. Now we pay a little more (I think I am at ~ 40% state & fed right now) and still have no control, and only get any idea what they are taking from us.

Just to depress you further, do this exercise: figure out what you pay in taxes every year. It isn't easy, because the system purposely makes it hard to figure out. If you keep track for an average month, you can work from that. Just a list to keep eyes open
-FICA
-State income
-SSN (it is a tax, because if you are under 40, you will never see a dime - accept it)
-City, county, or local tax (many have them)

Now, you have your "gross" money you already have taxed. Now, take your other taxes:
-Property tax
-Sales tax
-Look at your utility bills, and add up all the taxes in there (especially phone, cell & internet - FCC taxes especially)
-Fuel tax (just track your gallons in a month & calculate)
-Anything shipped (look at the bill & find the taxes there - usually more than any sales tax topped on end)

Now, these "post-tax taxes" piss me off - I already PAID a tax, and I am getting taxed again, so it is actually compounded. So even though you pay say 6% tax on buying something, you are actually "costing" you 6% on a salary already reduced 40%. Your buying power has dropped to half. It is really like an 8% tax, because you have so much less gross compared to your net income to work with.

When it is all said & done, you are paying (usually) over 65-75% taxes pretty easily.

So say you are making $50K a year. Now, someone has somehow pilfered about $30K of your money, and effectively left you to survive on $20K to pay for housing/transport/food/fuel/clothing/CAD.

Back to my point: if everyone had to physically write a check every April 15th for $15K to the feds and $10K to their state, you can be assured that taxes would be a highly debated political point.

So don't accept hidden taxes, because it will just be used to crank the rates higher.

That was a very good post. But now I'm depressed!!

 

[belgian]

1. 
   

   [*]Your tax system is screwed up if it has different sales tax for different age groups

   I agree with that statement. I knew you had to show your ID in order to be able to buy booze is some states, but to show your ID for buying a Hershi bar for reasons of a different tax category is new to me ....
   
   
   
   

   [*]Most shelf pricing is done with computers and printers, and programming them to put both prices in would be a relatively simple task, and once set up, would cause no greater inconvenience in pricing. Set the percentage multiplyers in the computer, and the only thing needed to change pricing would be one number, with the required prices computed automatically.

The system is indeed pretty simple and modern ticketing sysems allow for printing of labels stating the product price, VAT and tax separately on it, including the total price.


I didn't realise you had different tax systems based on age, etc. so that really complicates things, as Joat tried to explain.

But then I conclude that your tax system is unnecessarly complicated and not to the interest of the consumer. Europe got away with it as fraude and faulse taxing rates were leading to a huge number of complaints.

If there are parties that are not inclined to create transparancy, then there must be a reason for them do so, but it's certainly not to the interest of average consumer Joe....think about it.

 

[joatmon]

1. 
   I agree with that statement. I knew you had to show your ID in order to be able to buy booze is some states, but to show your ID for buying a Hershi bar for reasons of a different tax category is new to me ....
   
   
   
   
   
   The system is indeed pretty simple and modern ticketing sysems allow for printing of labels stating the product price, VAT and tax separately on it, including the total price.
   
   
   I didn't realise you had different tax systems based on age, etc. so that really complicates things, as Joat tried to explain.
   
   But then I conclude that your tax system is unnecessarly complicated and not to the interest of the consumer. Europe got away with it as fraude and faulse taxing rates were leading to a huge number of complaints.
   
   If there are parties that are not inclined to create transparancy, then there must be a reason for them do so, but it's certainly not to the interest of average consumer Joe....think about it.

1. 
   
   Roland,
   
   Transparancy is this instance would be keeping the taxes itemized so that you are able to clearly distinguish product price from taxes.
   
   Virtually every receipt from a sales transaction clearly show the tax(s) paid.
   
   No offence meant, but you seem to have a somewhat distorted view of life in the USA. It's not as complicated as you make it out to be.
   
   If I go to the Stihl dealer, and I schlep 10 gallons of bar oil to the counter, and they're marked $10, I know they're going to ask me for $106. I know that $6 goes to the state.
   
   I do not recommend that we design our system for the benefit of idiots. If we do that, they'll just build a better idiot.
   
   ole joat

 

[spacemule]

I do not recommend that we design our system for the benefit of idiots. If we do that, they'll just build a better idiot.

ole joat

I suppose you were against the "nutrition facts" labeling requirements as well? How about the country of origin label requirements for food? Did these things only benefit "idiots?"

Or, alternately, what makes you think non idiots would not benefit from clear labeling?

 

[edisto]

I suppose you were against the "nutrition facts" labeling requirements as well? How about the country of origin label requirements for food? Did these things only benefit "idiots?"

Or, alternately, what makes you think non idiots would not benefit from clear labeling?

Would such labeling allow comparisons between apples and oranges?

 

[spacemule]

Would such labeling allow comparisons between apples and oranges?

I'm not concerned with comparing apples and oranges.

 

[edisto]

I'm not concerned with comparing apples and oranges.

That rustling of your hair was caused by something passing over your head at a high rate of speed.

Do they keep the straw men in the produce section?

 

[spacemule]

That rustling of your hair was caused by something passing over your head at a high rate of speed.

I am comparing consumer products labels. The important characteristics of each are:

• both contemplate requirements for posting information on items for sale that is easily obtainable without the label
• both are about making purchasing information transparent
• both put a "burden" on the retailer to insure compliance with regulations
  

Therefore, the comparison is apples to apples.

 

[joatmon]

I suppose you were against the "nutrition facts" labeling requirements as well? How about the country of origin label requirements for food? Did these things only benefit "idiots?"

Or, alternately, what makes you think non idiots would not benefit from clear labeling?

Rexy,

Quite the contrary. It's impossible to look at a BigMac or a SuperSlider and tell the nutritional content. The nutritional info is necessary to make an informed decision.

I would NOT be in favor of only listing the total nutitional content of a #2 meal that consists of a BigMac, large fries and large Coca-Cola, but not listing the individual item's nutritional content. I believe that's a better comparison in this case.

BTW, I believe lots of idiot consumers don't read and/or heed the nutritional labels on foods whereas smarter, more informed consumers seem to make rational responses based on the nutritional labels.

Don't worry, I'm not idiophobic,

ole joat

 

[spacemule]

You can quit ankle biting any time ed. I'm through with this thread. I just learned that my brother in law is going to the hospital today--they think he's got cancer. Now go ahead and pick apart my statement here, I really don't care.

 

[joatmon]

You can quit ankle biting any time ed. I'm through with this thread. I just learned that my brother in law is going to the hospital today--they think he's got cancer. Now go ahead and pick apart my statement here, I really don't care.

Rexy,

Sorry about your brother in law.

Peace,

ole joat

 

[edisto]

You can quit ankle biting any time ed. I'm through with this thread. I just learned that my brother in law is going to the hospital today--they think he's got cancer. Now go ahead and pick apart my statement here, I really don't care.

Not ankle-biting...just pointing out inconsistencies while I wait for an answer to my question.

Hope they are wrong about your BIL.

 

[belgian]

I do not recommend that we design our system for the benefit of idiots. If we do that, they'll just build a better idiot.

ole joat

That is an arrogant statement Joat, and offensive to at least 70% of the population.

 

[joatmon]

That is an arrogant statement Joat, and offensive to at least 70% of the population.

Whoa! So, it is you that considers 70% of the population idiots?

Read my post again. IMHO, 99.9+% of the population has no trouble understanding that sales tax will be added at the register at the time of purchase. Most can predict what it will be. The few that don't understand this are not on their own shopping as someone is likely doing it for them.

If a larger portion of the population was confused by this, I would be in favor of it. The last thing we need is another regulation and another group of "enforcement police" to determine "compliance".

I am for consumer protection. In this case, I've never heard a complaint regarding not having the "out-the-door" price posted on the shelf.

ole joat

 

[belgian]

Joat, you might want to look at the poll results....

and if you would organise a poll at Wallmart, you would be stumped.

PS. You called them idiots, not me.

 

[joatmon]

Joat, you might want to look at the poll results....

and if you would organise a poll at Wallmart, you would be stumped.

PS. You called them idiots, not me.

I see you didn't address my response. I'm not one to be swayed by the polls. I submit that posting an "out-the-door" at the shelf does:

1) not help 99+% of the consumers in a meaningful way,

2) help to hide the taxes paid by the consumer,

3) would require a rewrite of tax code because as it now stands, the price is on the "sale", not the individual item,

4) would be confusing in cases where different tax rates are applied based on age or some other criteria, and

5) place a burden on "tax free holidays" as is now in the tax code by requiring a relabeling of all prices for a 3 day period.

Roland, I'm not a tax code expert, but this is what I see from my very limited perspective. I'm sure there are others with which I'm not aquainted.

Your comments to me have consisted of saying:

1) You don't like the way we do taxes in the USA and Europe is superior in this regard,

2) joat is arrogant, and

3) joat is not in agreement with the leading poll choice.

Your first response in this thread was, by your admission, without the benefit of reading the entire thread, you have not directly addressed most of my reasons for my position and yet it is you that cells me arrogant.

Ha,

ole joat

 

[belgian]

I see you didn't address my response. I'm not one to be swayed by the polls. I submit that posting an "out-the-door" at the shelf does:

1) not help 99+% of the consumers in a meaningful way,

that is your perception, not the one of the majority of the poll. Consumer organisations fought a hard battle in europe to achieve our transparent pricing.

2) help to hide the taxes paid by the consumer,

On the contrary, the tax and VAT over here is printed at the same label.

3) would require a rewrite of tax code because as it now stands, the price is on the "sale", not the individual item,

true. improving things always requires a change. That's called P-R-O-G-R-E-S-S.

4) would be confusing in cases where different tax rates are applied based on age or some other criteria, and

True, but same problem as 3

5) place a burden on "tax free holidays" as is now in the tax code by requiring a relabeling of all prices for a 3 day period.

can be easily replaced by a bonus or additional discount.

Roland, I'm not a tax code expert, but this is what I see from my very limited perspective. I'm sure there are others with which I'm not aquainted.

Your comments to me have consisted of saying:

1) You don't like the way we do taxes in the USA and Europe is superior in this regard,

No, I didn't say that. I said that labels should mention the end price, just like we have in europe. The majority of people prefer it that way, trust me.

2) joat is arrogant, and

Calling the majority that favors the total pricing idiots, is indeed arrogant imo. I know all too well that you in fact are not arrogant at all, so I was surprised by your statement.

3) joat is not in agreement with the leading poll choice.

agreed. but that give you no right to call the others "idiots" because they don't like to calculate the price themselves.

[

Your first response in this thread was, by your admission, without the benefit of reading the entire thread, you have not directly addressed most of my reasons for my position and yet it is you that cells me arrogant.



Ha,

ole joat

I don't understand what you are referring too, but I have had enough of this thread already. Maybe I am too rational for simple issues like this.
Have a beer on me. I just paid 2,34 € for one, including 21%VAT.

Ha !

 

[joatmon]

I see you didn't address my response. I'm not one to be swayed by the polls. I submit that posting an "out-the-door" at the shelf does:



that is your perception, not the one of the majority of the poll. Consumer organisations fought a hard battle in europe to achieve our transparent pricing.



On the contrary, the tax and VAT over here is printed at the same label.



true. improving things always requires a change. That's called P-R-O-G-R-E-S-S.




True, but same problem as 3



can be easily replaced by a bonus or additional discount.

Roland, I'm not a tax code expert, but this is what I see from my very limited perspective. I'm sure there are others with which I'm not aquainted.

Your comments to me have consisted of saying:

No, I didn't say that. I said that labels should mention the end price, just like we have in europe. The majority of people prefer it that way, trust me.

Calling the majority that favors the total pricing idiots, is indeed arrogant imo. I know all too well that you in fact are not arrogant at all, so I was surprised by your statement.



agreed. but that give you no right to call the others "idiots" because they don't like to calculate the price themselves.

[


I don't understand what you are referring too, but I have had enough of this thread already. Maybe I am too rational for simple issues like this.
Have a beer on me. I just paid 2,34 € for one, including 21%VAT.

Ha !

Roland,

Why do you conclude that becaue the poll favors one position that it therefore means that it would help consumers? I reject that connection based on the fact that taxes need be be easily identified.

My "idiot" reference was out-of-line and I owe an apology to anyone whom believedI aimed it at them. I see the confusion and the reason you picked up on it. In reality, I was addressing that ill-mannered remark to those that would really have a problem approximating the transaction price based on the product price and the tax due. I still believe that would be less than 1% of the population.

In the USA, we have many different tax districts. Taxes can include things like:
1) money to support general local, county and state operations,
2) money to support special district operations such as a fire department,
3) money to support schools,
4) money to support tourism and money to attract entertainment,
5) money to support the buiding of museums, libraries, auditoriums and such, and
6) I'm sure there are others.

If the OP had stated, should we rethink the way we levy and impose taxes in the USA in order to make it more simple and to allow the consumers of products to have a more straight forward "shelf price" on items, I believe it would have made more sense.

But, to have tens of thousands of taxing authorities in this country rewite all tax code to support this idea is a silly notion, at least, to me.

I still do not want taxes to be hidden and to me, hidden taxes is not transparency. But, I applaud you for your explaination that the price tax includes the breakout of the VAT, as that point was lost on me.

Another item that concerns me is a rewrite of the tax code. We seem to have a political crisis at the moment with special interest seeming to have their way with people in power. The people without a voice, the very one's the OP is supposedly trying to help, would be the losers in current political environment I'm sure.

Beers on me,

ole joat

 

[parrisw]

Roland,

Why do you conclude that becaue the poll favors one position that it therefore means that it would help consumers? I reject that connection based on the fact that taxes need be be easily identified.

My "idiot" reference was out-of-line and I owe an apology to anyone whom believedI aimed it at them. I see the confusion and the reason you picked up on it. In reality, I was addressing that ill-mannered remark to those that would really have a problem approximating the transaction price based on the product price and the tax due. I still believe that would be less than 1% of the population.

In the USA, we have many different tax districts. Taxes can include things like:
1) money to support general local, county and state operations,
2) money to support special district operations such as a fire department,
3) money to support schools,
4) money to support tourism and money to attract entertainment,
5) money to support the buiding of museums, libraries, auditoriums and such, and
6) I'm sure there are others.

If the OP had stated, should we rethink the way we levy and impose taxes in the USA in order to make it more simple and to allow the consumers of products to have a more straight forward "shelf price" on items, I believe it would have made more sense.

But, to have tens of thousands of taxing authorities in this country rewite all tax code to support this idea is a silly notion, at least, to me.

I still do not want taxes to be hidden and to me, hidden taxes is not transparency. But, I applaud you for your explaination that the price tax includes the breakout of the VAT, as that point was lost on me.

Another item that concerns me is a rewrite of the tax code. We seem to have a political crisis at the moment with special interest seeming to have their way with people in power. The people without a voice, the very one's the OP is supposedly trying to help, would be the losers in current political environment I'm sure.

Beers on me,

ole joat

I agree with ya Joat totally. I think its a ludicrous idea at best. A rewrite of the tax code, I would fear that would give them a chance to stick they greedy fingers deeper into the pot.

 

[b1rdman]

That's always been a peeve of mine--prices on the shelf that do not reflect what you pay. If there is an 8% tax, it should be reflected in the shelf tag, or, at the very least, both prices should be given. What do you think?

Don't care....they're both the same here.