E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

On Jan 22, 4:43*am, Graeme Wall wrote:

Because I know all the processing and billing costs have to be paid by
someone, and in the end it's the consumers.
Handling cash has quite a high cost as well, again, ultimately paid by
the consumers.

There obviously are costs and nuisances in handling cash.

However, retail stores have to have full provision to handle cash no
matter what, so many of the cash handling costs are fixed. The store
owner still has to go to the bank to deposit the day's receipts
regardless of the amount.

Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes (was: E-ZPass, wasCharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?))
 

On Jan 23, 9:18*am, "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:

Different sales tax rates apply to different goods in my state. Also, in
my state, newspapers and magazines are not taxed. It's really obnoxious
to impose all these high sales tax collection costs on merchants.

In my state, newspapers are not taxed, but magazines are taxed. It
got funny with certain periodicals like TV Guide--was that a
"newspaper" or a "magazine"? Different merchants charged it in
different ways.

In my state, most clothes are not taxes, but a few types of clothing
are taxed. Don't know why that is. My state does not tax candy bars,
but it seems that other states do. My state does tax soda.

I wonder how many states tax newspapers. I was surprised to be
charged sales tax in Washington, DC when I bought a paper.

Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes (was: E-ZPass, wasCharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?))
 

On Jan 23, 12:26*pm, Neil Williams wrote:

Not a reason not to include them in the price. *My point was that if
customer X enters the shop, then customer Y enters the shop, and both
buy the same thing, both would be charged the same for it?

I would guess most retail sales transactions today are processed by
barcode readers and computer and as such, be consistent with every
purchase.

Those few merchants who ring up manually may be inconsistent.

E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

wrote

However, retail stores have to have full provision to handle cash no
matter what, so many of the cash handling costs are fixed. The store
owner still has to go to the bank to deposit the day's receipts
regardless of the amount.

which is why .uk supermarkets encourage cashback on debit cards. They pay
the bank the same to process a GBP 50 as a GBP 30 transaction, but if they
persuade the customer with GBP 30 purchases to have GBP 20 cashback as well,
the store has GBP 20 less to bank (and the bank charge a percentage for
banking cash).

Peter

Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes
 

On 23-Jan-12 13:01, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
John Levine wrote:

That's a load of crap. You want the merchant to handle monies that have
to be refunded, eventually, claiming it's simpler.

Yeah, it's simpler. I have both a NY sales tax merchant account and a
Canadian GST account. The GST is much easier to deal with.

What's your experience with VAT?

So, you're a reseller, and you would find it simpler to pay the tax you're
not subject to and then get it rebated?

You apparently don't understand how a VAT works. Here's how reselling
widgets works under the sales tax system, assuming a rate of 10%:

1. Get a sales tax license
2. Set up a commercial account with a wholesaler, providing your sales
tax license information so they don't charge you sales tax.
3. Buy a widget for $8.00, not including sales tax.
4. Price the widget at $9.09.
5. Sell the widget for $10.00, including sales tax of $0.91.
6. Send the government $0.91.
7. Keep your profit of $1.09.

Here's how it works under the VAT system, with a rate* of 9.1%:

1. Buy a widget for $8.80, including VAT of $0.80.
2. Price and sell the widget at $10.00, including VAT of $0.91.
3. Subtract VAT paid of $0.80 from VAT collected of $0.91.
4. Send the government $0.11.
5. Keep your profit of $1.09.

How do you think the former system is simpler? At worst, it has the
same complexity.

(* Due to the different ways of applying the rate, to get the same
yields calculate V=S/(1+S) or S=V/(1-V).)

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

On 23-Jan-12 15:19, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:10:59 on Mon, 23 Jan
2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:
Burger King have a [USA] nation-wide offer of $1.99 at the moment.

I fail to see the point you are making.

It's $1.99 plus a variable amount of sales tax, not $1.99 including a
variable amount of sales tax.

I still fail to see the point you are making.

It's not a complex point.

BK can advertise a nationwide price of $1.99 in large part _because_
that doesn't include the variable tax.

Exactly.

To collect $1.99 for every burger (or whatever it is), they'd need to
advertise different prices in different markets or even within the
_same_ markets, depending on how granular the tax jurisdictions are.

I knew you'd get there eventually.

Get there? I made that same point in the post you originally responded
to, which is why I didn't understand what point _you_ were making.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
 

Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes
 

John Levine wrote:

So, you're a reseller, and you would find it simpler to pay the tax
you're not subject to and then get it rebated?

No, I'm saying that I DO find it simpler. I'm reporting actual
experience, as opposed to making stuff up.

You're not explaining your business situation as to why you have these
accounts.

Indeed. So?

So you're not a merchant, and what you're babbling about is irrelevant
to anything Stephen said. Or you are a merchant, and you are being
deliberately evasive so no one can tell how your experience relates
to the real world of other merchants.

Otherwise, your followup has been a fine contribution to this thread.

London Congestion Zone charge
 

On 23-Jan-12 15:58, wrote:
On Jan 21, 5:39 pm, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Nope; it's just the regular cash toll rate, plus a $2 fee per paper
bill, same as any other driver would get if they don't have a
transponder. Transponder users can choose electronic statements, which
are free, in addition to getting a significant (1/3) discount on tolls.

Ok, so we have a toll bridge they want to make all electronic. The
toll now is $1.00, regardless of EZP or cash.

But if they add on a $2 fee for non EZP users (like occassional
drivers who are many), that becomes a huge toll increase--$3 instead
of $1.

Doesn't seem right to do that.

The $2 fee is per bill, which means at most once per month, not per
transaction.

So, if you cross that bridge five times per month, you would pay $10 in
tolls plus the $2 statement fee, or $2.40 per crossing. That's reasonable.

(NTTA won't send a bill/statement with fewer than five transactions for
exactly this reason, so it would never be any worse than that. I'm not
sure how other agencies deal with infrequent users.)

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

Stating prices at retail inclusive of taxes
 

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 23-Jan-12 13:01, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
John Levine wrote:

That's a load of crap. You want the merchant to handle monies that have
to be refunded, eventually, claiming it's simpler.

Yeah, it's simpler. I have both a NY sales tax merchant account and a
Canadian GST account. The GST is much easier to deal with.

What's your experience with VAT?

So, you're a reseller, and you would find it simpler to pay the tax you're
not subject to and then get it rebated?

You apparently don't understand how a VAT works.

I understand just fine how VAT works. John Levine made an irrelevant
comment about VAT, which I ignored.

How do you think the former system is simpler?

I made no such comment. Why not address your question in followup to
John Levine's article?

All I said was that I disagreed with YOUR suggestion that the merchant
collect sales tax from everyone, including transactions in which the
law would not impose a sales tax.