Comcast and other ISPs asked FCC to ditch listing-every-fee rule. FCC says "no."

Aww … poor little ISPs.

@WarmSoda@lemm.ee
link
fedilink
22
edit-2
1Y

The tax drives me crazy. The excuse for not displaying the total price after tax is because it’s different for each state. …yet the cash register seems to be able to handle that perfectly fine. So it can’t that hard to figure it out.

Edit: after a quick look into it, the main problem is tax in a lot of places is based on the Total amount sold, not on each item. So that could definitely be impossible to display before hand.

after a quick look into it, the main problem is tax in a lot of places is based on the Total amount sold, not on each item.

I’m actually confused, aren’t taxes a percentage? The sum of a percentage of all items should be the same as a percentage of the sum, no? Or is my brain not do math good? Can someone smarter than me explain?

TehPers
link
fedilink
English
6
edit-2
1Y

The sum of a percentage of all items should be the same as a percentage of the sum, no?

Suppose you buy two items costing x and y, and there’s a constant sales tax of t (say 10%, or 0.1). You’d pay t * x + t * y, or t * (x + y). You can even generalize this to Σ(t * x) = t * Σx (for x ∈ X, where X is the set of prices you’re paying).

In other words, yes.

In case you want the math name for this property, it’s the distributive property.

I think the issue they were bringing up though is that tax is not applied equally to all items, and that tax may be determined by number of items sold. I don’t actually know if this is true or not, but if it is, the distributive property doesn’t apply anymore. Edit: I re-read the comment, that doesn’t look like what they were saying actually. Either way, if tax is weird like this, distributive property may not apply anymore.

@WarmSoda@lemm.ee
link
fedilink
3
edit-2
1Y

Hopefully someone can. Me no math good either.
!SeaJ@Lemm.ee shared this:

https://www.taxjar.com/blog/retail/can-retailer-include-sales-tax-in-the-price

Say you list a table lamp on your website at $100, tax included. Well, if you sell that table lamp to a buyer in Connecticut (where the tax rate is a flat 6.35%) then you’re required to remit $6.35 in sales tax to the state of Connecticut on that transaction.

But if you sell the same table lamp to a buyer in Aberdeen, Washington, where the sales tax rate is 9.08%, then you’d be required to remit $9.08 in sales tax to the state of Washington.

As you can see, you are cutting into your profit margin by including tax in your pricing.

Further, US customers are accustomed to paying their local sales tax rates. We’re so accustomed to paying odd amounts in sales tax that paying a flat rate might surprise us or leave us a little confused.

This is anti-consumer bullshit nonsense. All they did was hid their only real “con” behind a wall of text. “As you can see, you are cutting into your profit margin by including sales tax”

And the last paragraph is fucking stupid too. People are too used to seeing numbers, so other numbers will confuse them!

astraeus
link
fedilink
41Y

Last paragraph feels like marketing language for “it’s free real estate”

100% agree

When I make price signs at work I make sure the price shows taxes and bottle deposits. I think my store is the only one to do that. I manage a liquor store

You’re a hero. I hope your customers notice what your doing for them.

ripcord
link
fedilink
12
edit-2
1Y

I’m not aware of anywhere in the US where the tax is variable depending on total amount sold. Sometimes some things are excluded from sales tax. But that’s per-item and not variable.

In the vast majority of the US there’s no reason they can’t just display the price with tax.

Granted, prices on consumer items are so fucking out of control retailers and etc just charge whatever the fuck they want and people are expected to pay it. They’re gouging at 80%, 100%, 150% markups on food, clothing, services, etc versus 2 years ago and people seem to just accept it (tough not to when everyone is doing it)

Initially they got away with it because “COVID supply problems”, which was frequently a lie or exaggeration. Now there’s no excuse given typically; people quote “inflation” but that’s a tiny fraction of it. It’s just gouging companies have learned they can keep getting away with more and more.

In Ontario Canada there is no provincial tax component on meals costing less than $4. This dates from the time you could get a simple lunch for < $4. Unfortunately it’s never been adjusted for inflation.

No reason not to show amount with tax and give people a pleasant surprise though

@WarmSoda@lemm.ee
link
fedilink
3
edit-2
1Y

Check out the article linked below. I’m interested in what you think after that. Especially with the states that forbid including tax in displayed prices (and why they don’t).

I didn’t know about that until I just read it.

astraeus
link
fedilink
21Y

Tax in almost every single place I’ve ever been to in the United States is not nearly so complicated. State tax, occasional city/county tax, seldom restaurant tax are nearly always flat rates. It wouldn’t be difficult to incorporate those taxes applied for each individual item to their prices at all. Most places choose not to because it inflates the price on menus and price tags, and most people assume tax is not included in these prices.

The initial shock of charging more could convince patrons to go elsewhere if it’s not perfectly clear tax is included in the price.

Pete Hahnloser
creator
link
fedilink
11Y

The problem is at the advertising level.

Could your local Safeway put tax-inclusive prices in the circular? Sure, although there are actually laws that prohibit such local pricing (YMMV; I’ve lived in a lot of states) specifically so that people in the sticks aren’t shouldering the entire transportation bill to their IGA. This is why grocery circulars are regional, but that’s an aside. Still, different cities in the region will have different tax rates, so they can’t do tax-inclusive, and they certainly can’t have a different price on the shelf than in the circular, and here we are.

But these are small potatoes.

Now, can Tim Cook release a new iPhone and list the price in every municipality in the U.S. in the keynote? The patchwork of devolved taxing authority makes the U.S. a poor candidate for tax-inclusive pricing.

States universally abandoning income tax for VAT (ain’t never gonna happen, since VAT inconveniently hits even billionaires’ consumption [and even less likely would be pushing through VAT while retaining income tax]) could get things closer to what Europeans have come to expect, where each state would have a universal rate and consistently applied carveouts and then distribute that to lower tiers of government as some states currently do with sales tax, but the closest advertising could get to that would be “state VAT excluded,” at which point nothing has been fixed in terms of walking out the door paying the advertised price at the cost of unpopular economic upheaval.

Create a post

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

  • 1 user online
  • 168 users / day
  • 324 users / week
  • 631 users / month
  • 2.27K users / 6 months
  • 1 subscriber
  • 3.36K Posts
  • 67.7K Comments
  • Modlog