3 ms·

The point of the classification is to not unduly burden the poor by taxing staple foods, such as bread. It's not about being snobby, everybody can agree that on

by mantap 6y ago

The point of the classification is to not unduly burden the poor by taxing staple foods, such as bread. It's not about being snobby, everybody can agree that on the outside of a subway sandwich there is bread. But subway is fast food. The ingredients are selected to make you buy and buy more. I wouldn't really call it a staple.

hyperpape 6y ago
My opinion is that this is a bad policy. We could just tax it all equally (plenty of folks making good money eat at Subway) and ensure that the people have enough money to get by. But instead, governments around the world create these Rube Goldberg machines that require a court to define what bread is.
- madsbuch 6y ago
  Just like software systems legal systems should probably get "refactored" once in a while. But just like managers don't really understand that need, politicians don't either.
  - Sharlin 6y ago
    Besides being unfair to both managers and politicians, that analogy doesn’t work. Refactoring by definition does not affect the visible behavior of a program. The judicial system is not a computer and cannot just happily start executing a newly refactored program. This is doubly so in common law jurisdictions that lean heavily on precedents and case law.
- PietdeVries 6y ago
  In the Netherlands there are two levels of sales tax (BTW); the high one for "luxury" goods - 21%, and a low (9%) one for necessary stuff. A lot of goods are necessary, and there is no need for the country to profit from (after all, the sales tax goes to the government, not to the shop owner). You can also use sales tax to nudge people into buying more healthy food. The fact that hamburgers and chips are cheaper than a salad and fruit is something you can correct somewhat by moving junk food to the higher sales tax. And I personally also think that the judges might have taken into account that this seems like yet another multinational that wants a tax cut over the heads of the normal companies. The news that Mr President pays nickles and dimes as income tax where John Doe pays tenfold nicely paints the picture...
- mantap 6y ago
  Why not both? Ensure people have enough money to get by and don't levy sales tax on staple foods. People value cheaper food over conceptual simplicity of the tax system.
- unionpivo 6y ago
  Sure in a perfect world your comment makes sense. But your comment essentially boils down to fix poverty. People have been trying to do that for a long time. Situation is improving in some places but we are still not even close to be there. So until we fix poverty, workarounds like this provide real help to real people.
- YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
  My reading is that rather the Subway franchisee tried to define what a "staple food" is, saying that Subway sandwiches are "staple food" because bread. The court decided that, no, they're not, because we have a legal definition of what "bread" means and the stuff in your sarnies is not that. You wouldn't need legal definitions for obvious things like that if people didn't constantly try to wring every last drop of profit out of each other by twisting things this way and that. Them's the roots of the "Rude Goldberg" machines in your comment: people getting creative to make a pig's meal of perfectly sensible laws that are there for a reason other than help folks maximise their profits by selling hot bullshit on a stick.
dreamcompiler 6y ago
> subway is fast food. The ingredients are selected to make you buy and buy more. Exactly. If you add enough salt, sugar, and fat you can make anything taste good, regardless of whether it's actually "food". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Sugar_Fat:_How_the_Food_Giants_Hooked_Us https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Sugar_Fat:_How_the_Food...

by mantap 6y ago

hyperpape 6y ago

My opinion is that this is a bad policy. We could just tax it all equally (plenty of folks making good money eat at Subway) and ensure that the people have enough money to get by. But instead, governments around the world create these Rube Goldberg machines that require a court to define what bread is.

madsbuch 6y ago
Just like software systems legal systems should probably get "refactored" once in a while. But just like managers don't really understand that need, politicians don't either.
- Sharlin 6y ago
  Besides being unfair to both managers and politicians, that analogy doesn’t work. Refactoring by definition does not affect the visible behavior of a program. The judicial system is not a computer and cannot just happily start executing a newly refactored program. This is doubly so in common law jurisdictions that lean heavily on precedents and case law.
PietdeVries 6y ago
In the Netherlands there are two levels of sales tax (BTW); the high one for "luxury" goods - 21%, and a low (9%) one for necessary stuff. A lot of goods are necessary, and there is no need for the country to profit from (after all, the sales tax goes to the government, not to the shop owner). You can also use sales tax to nudge people into buying more healthy food. The fact that hamburgers and chips are cheaper than a salad and fruit is something you can correct somewhat by moving junk food to the higher sales tax. And I personally also think that the judges might have taken into account that this seems like yet another multinational that wants a tax cut over the heads of the normal companies. The news that Mr President pays nickles and dimes as income tax where John Doe pays tenfold nicely paints the picture...
mantap 6y ago
Why not both? Ensure people have enough money to get by and don't levy sales tax on staple foods. People value cheaper food over conceptual simplicity of the tax system.
unionpivo 6y ago
Sure in a perfect world your comment makes sense. But your comment essentially boils down to fix poverty. People have been trying to do that for a long time. Situation is improving in some places but we are still not even close to be there. So until we fix poverty, workarounds like this provide real help to real people.
YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
My reading is that rather the Subway franchisee tried to define what a "staple food" is, saying that Subway sandwiches are "staple food" because bread. The court decided that, no, they're not, because we have a legal definition of what "bread" means and the stuff in your sarnies is not that. You wouldn't need legal definitions for obvious things like that if people didn't constantly try to wring every last drop of profit out of each other by twisting things this way and that. Them's the roots of the "Rude Goldberg" machines in your comment: people getting creative to make a pig's meal of perfectly sensible laws that are there for a reason other than help folks maximise their profits by selling hot bullshit on a stick.

dreamcompiler 6y ago

> subway is fast food. The ingredients are selected to make you buy and buy more. Exactly. If you add enough salt, sugar, and fat you can make anything taste good, regardless of whether it's actually "food". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Sugar_Fat:_How_the_Food_Giants_Hooked_Us https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Sugar_Fat:_How_the_Food...