4 ms·

I wish they would treat sales tax as a hidden fee. Just show the actual damn price up front plzkthx.

twblalock 4y ago
If we had a standard sales tax, sure. But when sales taxes vary by city and county, like they do in California, it's very painful to do that -- and that's only 1 of the 50 states!
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  It's also very painful for me to have to guess the final price with all these different sales taxes. I think maybe if it had to be included in the final price, then the cities and counties might standardize a bit more.
- 93po 4y ago
  They're still having to make that calculation at the register. There's no reason they can't calculate it when making price tags.
- Alupis 4y ago
  > like they do in California, it's very painful to do that -- and that's only 1 of the 50 states Not all 50 states have a tax system as absurd as California's, where it matters down to the exact part of the street you're standing on when buying something. Other states are the example CA should follow, not the other way around.
- forrestthewoods 4y ago
  > it's very painful to do that Sure it's hard. Do I care? Not in even the slightest. I have not one picogram of care. The calculation is made at the point of sale. They can list a final price and work backwards. Does that make it harder for a business to set the price? Yeah maybe. I still don't care. It's a clearly solvable problem. It'd provide a superior consumer experience. It'd be slightly inconvenient for businesses. SHIP IT.
asdff 4y ago
Sales tax is at least easy to calculate back of the envelope.
Alupis 4y ago
Sales Tax probably should be done-away with. In California, you are taxed when you earn a dollar, and taxed when you spend that same dollar. If you look at your bank account and it's balance is $100, you do not actually have $100 in purchasing power, but rather 7-12% less, because sales tax will be computed when you spend this money. Why not just charge the appropriate amount for Income Tax and be done with it...
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  Sales taxes penalize poorer people, who spend a greater proportion of their income. They are regressive and unfair. In the UK we have two different kinds of income tax; one is called National Insurance, but it's not insurance at all. It's there so that the government can brag about reducing income tax. When the UK joined the EU, we had to introduce sales tax (VAT). Part of the VAT receipts were to fund the EU. Note that VAT is much higher than US sales taxes (20%). Now we're out: whoopee! No more VAT! Oh, hang on...
  - forrestthewoods 4y ago
    > Sales taxes penalize poorer people, who spend a greater proportion of their income. They are regressive and unfair. It's only unfair if the collected tax revenue isn't used to benefit the poor. The US has one of the most progressive tax systems on the planet. Sweden has one of the most regressive [1]. A tax being regressive or progressive doesn't make it inherently bad or good. And if a country can't effectively utilize tax revenue then it doesn't matter who foots the bill. [1] https://www.vox.com/2014/10/8/6946565/progressive-taxes-are-not-the-solution-to-inequality https://www.vox.com/2014/10/8/6946565/progressive-taxes-are-...
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      As a matter of cross-party practice over many years, UK sales tax (VAT) just goes into the government's general funds, same as income tax, national insurance, road tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and so on. There is a strong aversion here to hypothecation. That is: sales taxes are not used to benefit the poor, particularly. They are used to finance defence expenditure, tax cuts for bankers, and fees for pharma and consulting companies, same as other tax revenues. I think the only exception is local property tax ("Council tax"), which partially props up the funding of local government. But that's capped, and most local authorities charge the maximum. So it might as well be paid by central government, out of the general fund. [Edit] I take your point about regressive/progressive. The Vox article didn't use the term "progressive"; they said "broad-based". It's right that a tax-hike should hit everybody; but it's also fair that it should hit high earners harder than the poor, roughly in proportion to what they earn. Wealth tax, as a tax on savings and property, is iniquitous.

If we had a standard sales tax, sure. But when sales taxes vary by city and county, like they do in California, it's very painful to do that -- and that's only 1 of the 50 states!

jimkleiber 4y ago
It's also very painful for me to have to guess the final price with all these different sales taxes. I think maybe if it had to be included in the final price, then the cities and counties might standardize a bit more.
93po 4y ago
They're still having to make that calculation at the register. There's no reason they can't calculate it when making price tags.
Alupis 4y ago
> like they do in California, it's very painful to do that -- and that's only 1 of the 50 states Not all 50 states have a tax system as absurd as California's, where it matters down to the exact part of the street you're standing on when buying something. Other states are the example CA should follow, not the other way around.
forrestthewoods 4y ago
> it's very painful to do that Sure it's hard. Do I care? Not in even the slightest. I have not one picogram of care. The calculation is made at the point of sale. They can list a final price and work backwards. Does that make it harder for a business to set the price? Yeah maybe. I still don't care. It's a clearly solvable problem. It'd provide a superior consumer experience. It'd be slightly inconvenient for businesses. SHIP IT.

asdff 4y ago

Sales tax is at least easy to calculate back of the envelope.

Alupis 4y ago

Sales Tax probably should be done-away with. In California, you are taxed when you earn a dollar, and taxed when you spend that same dollar. If you look at your bank account and it's balance is $100, you do not actually have $100 in purchasing power, but rather 7-12% less, because sales tax will be computed when you spend this money. Why not just charge the appropriate amount for Income Tax and be done with it...

denton-scratch 4y ago
Sales taxes penalize poorer people, who spend a greater proportion of their income. They are regressive and unfair. In the UK we have two different kinds of income tax; one is called National Insurance, but it's not insurance at all. It's there so that the government can brag about reducing income tax. When the UK joined the EU, we had to introduce sales tax (VAT). Part of the VAT receipts were to fund the EU. Note that VAT is much higher than US sales taxes (20%). Now we're out: whoopee! No more VAT! Oh, hang on...
- forrestthewoods 4y ago
  > Sales taxes penalize poorer people, who spend a greater proportion of their income. They are regressive and unfair. It's only unfair if the collected tax revenue isn't used to benefit the poor. The US has one of the most progressive tax systems on the planet. Sweden has one of the most regressive [1]. A tax being regressive or progressive doesn't make it inherently bad or good. And if a country can't effectively utilize tax revenue then it doesn't matter who foots the bill. [1] https://www.vox.com/2014/10/8/6946565/progressive-taxes-are-not-the-solution-to-inequality https://www.vox.com/2014/10/8/6946565/progressive-taxes-are-...
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    As a matter of cross-party practice over many years, UK sales tax (VAT) just goes into the government's general funds, same as income tax, national insurance, road tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax and so on. There is a strong aversion here to hypothecation. That is: sales taxes are not used to benefit the poor, particularly. They are used to finance defence expenditure, tax cuts for bankers, and fees for pharma and consulting companies, same as other tax revenues. I think the only exception is local property tax ("Council tax"), which partially props up the funding of local government. But that's capped, and most local authorities charge the maximum. So it might as well be paid by central government, out of the general fund. [Edit] I take your point about regressive/progressive. The Vox article didn't use the term "progressive"; they said "broad-based". It's right that a tax-hike should hit everybody; but it's also fair that it should hit high earners harder than the poor, roughly in proportion to what they earn. Wealth tax, as a tax on savings and property, is iniquitous.