5 ms·
Almost every other country in the world has solved this problem. It’s always fascinating when Americans have problems other countries don’t have, and just thro
by shortcake27 3y ago
Almost every other country in the world has solved this problem.
It’s always fascinating when Americans have problems other countries don’t have, and just throw their hands in air saying “welp nothing we can do about it”
- autoexec 3y agoOne group always pushes the "nothing can be done" narrative because they've been making money hand over fist because of the way things are now and they don't want the status quo to change. Another group who jumps straight to "nothing can be done" have been conned by the first group into thinking that any deviation from the status quo is a trick by the devil to somehow take their freedom/property. Add in an unhealthy dose of American Exceptionalism and irrational fears of other countries and it means that there will always be somebody unwilling to consider adopting a good example set by people with a different flag or a funny accent. The rest of us are more frustrated than fascinated by the whole thing.
- olliej 3y agoThat's because other countries aren't as aggressive about pushing governance down to a local level. For example: in most countries you include sales tax in your advertisement, because why wouldn't you? In the US there is no countrywide sales tax, there are some states with literally no sales tax, and then there are states with high sales tax to compensate for zero income tax (which is excitingly regressive taxation). Then inside the states each county can have its own array of sales and service taxes, which can also vary according to the goods and services involved, and finally individual cities in those counties can also have their own. Core to this is that the US constitution explicitly enshrines federalism in the tenth amendment (the last part of the "bill of rights"), that explicitly limits the power of the federal government.
- heimidal 3y ago> Core to this is that the US constitution explicitly enshrines federalism in the tenth amendment (the last part of the "bill of rights"), that explicitly limits the power of the federal government. I think this is the part that non-Americans fail to understand; we have no central tax authority and that principle is enshrined in our Constitution. Like it or not, so long as the US exists in its current form, so too does our wildly disparate tax code.
- dartharva 3y agoNone of this is complicated enough to not have labels print the right price.
- olliej 3y agoThe price on labels in a store is an absolutely negligible part of the problem. By the time you're looking at prices in the store you've already chosen that store, presumably on the basis of the advertisements. So the problem is that your rule impacts the prices everywhere that you see a price: any price you see online, in a poster, in a magazine, in a newspaper, in a mailer, on tv, or hear over the radio cannot include the correct taxes for where you pay for or receive the product/service. The only place that can have the correct price is an in brick and mortar shop at the final point of sale, and even then some prices can be impacted by things like whether you're a retiree, disabled, veteran, etc. The lack of tax in the price is annoying but is predictable and is consistent. Failing to include the relevant taxes does not impact the relative cost of anything on the shelf. If you choose product A because it's the cheapest, it will still be cheapest once tax is applied. The problem addressed by this bill is when product A is the cheapest on the shelf, but has a secret fee that no other product has, that you don't find out about until checkout. Legislation that said "you must include the final paid price in any price" in the US literally means "you cannot advertise a price for the product". To be clear, if you go to an online store, then your rule means none of the listings can include any price information until you provide the final delivery address. Good luck comparing prices. Hence the law says "your advertised/stated/sticker price must be the full price including any 'fees' and similar that are not set by a government agency". That is it fixes the only thing that it is possible to fix: prices online including "fees" that are really just part of the price. In addition to being odious and anti-competitive I would also argue that those "fees" are attempted tax evasion to create a fake price for sales, and similar taxes. Would I like the listed price to be the actual real price being charged? of course, the only people who disagree are also the ones abusing the "fee" BS that this law bans. But any law that attempted to do that by mandating inclusion of taxes in prices would instantly mean that advertisements in the US (I guess technically just CA in this case) would be unable to include any price information. So is it annoying that when I see prices in advertisements I have to remember to add some % to the price? of course. Is being unable to fix that a reason we should also have to allow retailers to add completely arbitrary and fake "fees" that are a mandatory part of the price that the retailer (or whatever) has complete control over? I would say the argument is no, we should not allow that, and that's what this law bans. It sounds like you're saying that because we can't fix the pricing to include taxes everywhere, we shouldn't stop companies from having fake fees?
- hotpotamus 3y agoAt some point American Exceptionalism turned into learned helplessness and it's incredibly frustrating.
- dudul 3y agoHow many other countries are formed by a union of states governed by something similar to the 10th amendment? Always fascinating when non Americans can't understand that different places have different rules.