7 ms·

Would we ever see legislation that would require companies to not increase the cost of digital goods after a tax is instituted? Alternatively, could we not just

by gabea 7y ago

Would we ever see legislation that would require companies to not increase the cost of digital goods after a tax is instituted? Alternatively, could we not just have a fixed tax contribution on goods each year rather than making it piecemeal per digital good sold? I find it weird to tax goods unless the existence of the tax is to change behavior. (not sure if that is the goal here?)

Zak 7y ago
The article says it's a response to a reduction in sales tax collected, so it would seem the goal is to collect revenue. A prohibition on raising the price seems unlikely; that's not usually the case with other things that act like sales taxes.
- writepub 7y ago
  It's always amusing that no one talks about more efficient ways to use revenues, than blindly increasing tax, when it comes to the government. Has ANY government service become any better, over time while taxes have constantly risen?
  - cheerlessbog 7y ago
    There are certainly jurisdictions that are arguably under taxed because they only have the funds to provide meager services. See: Kansas Experiment.
  - moorhosj 7y ago
    Aren’t lots more government services digitized now versus 20 years ago? Lots of forms and records you needed to be in-person to access are now available online. Many cities have open data programs where they make large data sets freely available via API or query. In Chicago, my local library and school have improve programming options over the past 10 years. Those are a few examples.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tomjen3 7y ago
The problem with that is that either a) you go under the margins and each sale is a loss, meaning that the company will offer no services at all; b) you stay under the margins, but not enough for the investors to keep investing (they expect higher profits elsewhere) and so the company now has no investors; c) you cut into the margin so much that it is not worth it for the company to continue developing new stuff. In the case of c they will most likely continue to develop new stuff, based on their revenues elsewhere, but at that point the high tax areas are leaching of other low tax areas where the company can afford to fund innovation. That assumes that you can find out when a company increase prices based on higher taxes, as opposed to anything else, which you cannot do. The only real solution is to tell the retirees that they are not getting the money they counted on; that is hardly unfair as I am sure nobody here expects there to be any retirement funds for them, except what they can save up.

by gabea 7y ago

Zak 7y ago

The article says it's a response to a reduction in sales tax collected, so it would seem the goal is to collect revenue. A prohibition on raising the price seems unlikely; that's not usually the case with other things that act like sales taxes.

writepub 7y ago
It's always amusing that no one talks about more efficient ways to use revenues, than blindly increasing tax, when it comes to the government. Has ANY government service become any better, over time while taxes have constantly risen?
- cheerlessbog 7y ago
  There are certainly jurisdictions that are arguably under taxed because they only have the funds to provide meager services. See: Kansas Experiment.
- moorhosj 7y ago
  Aren’t lots more government services digitized now versus 20 years ago? Lots of forms and records you needed to be in-person to access are now available online. Many cities have open data programs where they make large data sets freely available via API or query. In Chicago, my local library and school have improve programming options over the past 10 years. Those are a few examples.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tomjen3 7y ago

The problem with that is that either a) you go under the margins and each sale is a loss, meaning that the company will offer no services at all; b) you stay under the margins, but not enough for the investors to keep investing (they expect higher profits elsewhere) and so the company now has no investors; c) you cut into the margin so much that it is not worth it for the company to continue developing new stuff. In the case of c they will most likely continue to develop new stuff, based on their revenues elsewhere, but at that point the high tax areas are leaching of other low tax areas where the company can afford to fund innovation. That assumes that you can find out when a company increase prices based on higher taxes, as opposed to anything else, which you cannot do. The only real solution is to tell the retirees that they are not getting the money they counted on; that is hardly unfair as I am sure nobody here expects there to be any retirement funds for them, except what they can save up.