4 ms·
This was not a black and white statement. You need to read better. I said JIT was not created for the sake of inventory taxes. JIT doesn't exist just for the sa
by hnews_account_1 5y ago
This was not a black and white statement. You need to read better. I said JIT was not created for the sake of inventory taxes. JIT doesn't exist just for the sake of inventory taxes either. Why would someone tax small stocks of inventory enough to justify pure JIT?
The bigger reason is to turnover your inventory faster and use cash more efficiently. The most basic of finance education would tell you about this. There are measures of this called inventory turnover, just as there are measures for turnover on many many things inside a company that gives an idea of how efficiently they use cash. I have never in my life seen a financial model on the face of the planet consider inventory taxes primarily because they're a non factor. Income taxes are a much bigger factor.
- R0b0t1 5y agoI have read about the original case for JIT. Toyota and others, for example, do not hold the parts but bully their suppliers into holding them. They implicitly recognise the need for maintaining inventory but have forced someone else to bear the costs of maintaining it. HN is not usually biased against taxes which is the subtext I see in your original post. There are bad policies and unintended consequences to some taxes.
- hnews_account_1 5y agoAh no. My subtext was complete idiocy of HN on anything outside the immediate area of computing and software. Not about taxes in particular. I don't hang out around here often enough to recognize bias within specific topics.