|
E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
On 22/01/2012 21:52, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 22-Jan-12 09:23, Roland Perry wrote: In , at 09:08:00 on Sun, 22 Jan 2012, Stephen remarked: Many US retailers push for card use because they believe the labor and fraud costs of handling cash are higher. Do you mean the risk of counterfeit banknotes? This is something that seems to have been overcome in the UK one way or another. That's a risk in some countries, and even in the US many merchants won't accept bills larger than $20 (though the risk is obviously the same whether someone counterfeits a $100 bill or five $20 bills), but that's not the real problem. Modern currency is very difficult to counterfeit well enough to pass even a cursory examination. Most people in the Eurozone are reluctant to accept 50-euro notes. I think that they were even planning to pull the 500-euro note. There's also the time it takes to count the customer's money and, if applicable, make change. This is particularly bad in the US since taxes are not included in the price, so the total due is rarely known before the order is rung up. Why is that, I wonder? I think that is also the case with the GST and PST in Canada. Here in many (if not all) parts of Europe, the price that you pay for something already has relevant taxes figured in. |
E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
|
E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
Stephen Sprunk writes:
Here in many (if not all) parts of Europe, the price that you pay for something already has relevant taxes figured in. That way seems more logical. It's certainly more efficient. .... and in my experience it makes for a lot more peace-of-mind when shopping. Even though one _can_ just mentally add on the tax rate when looking at an item, there's something really comforting about knowing that the price shown on the tag is actually the exact amount of money you'll have to fork over. This is especially true for high-priced items (where the difference isn't trivial), but it's also is really nice for _low_ priced items, where you can actually look at the amount of money you have in your hand, and be completely sure you'll have enough... [I suppose one reason U.S. retail businesses would vehemently object to a VAT or "more honest labelling" regulations, is that the "perceived price" of their goods would go up, even if the amount paid by customers stayed the same...] -Miles -- Selfish, adj. Devoid of consideration for the selfishness of others. |
E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
On 22-Jan-12 18:39, Miles Bader wrote:
Stephen Sprunk writes: Here in many (if not all) parts of Europe, the price that you pay for something already has relevant taxes figured in. That way seems more logical. It's certainly more efficient. ... and in my experience it makes for a lot more peace-of-mind when shopping. Even though one _can_ just mentally add on the tax rate when looking at an item, Good luck with that, unless the item's price and tax rate together only have two or three significant digits. That's rare in my experience; for instance, I might see something priced at $39.95 with a tax rate of 8.25%, for a total of seven significant digits. While some people may be able to figure out the after-tax price in their heads, few would bother with the effort, and most can't do it at all. there's something really comforting about knowing that the price shown on the tag is actually the exact amount of money you'll have to fork over. Indeed. On my first trip overseas, that was one of the most welcome aspects of shopping: you know exactly what you're going to pay. This also encourages round-number pricing ($40 vs $39.95)--something that is pointless under a pre-tax pricing model. This is especially true for high-priced items (where the difference isn't trivial), but it's also is really nice for _low_ priced items, where you can actually look at the amount of money you have in your hand, and be completely sure you'll have enough... Yep, and I vaguely remember learning that lesson as a kid: a dollar can't buy things in a store priced $0.99. That's just plain stupid. [I suppose one reason U.S. retail businesses would vehemently object to a VAT or "more honest labelling" regulations, is that the "perceived price" of their goods would go up, even if the amount paid by customers stayed the same...] That's really only applies to one merchant doing it voluntarily; if they were all forced to do it, all posted prices would rise slightly and everyone would adjust with minimal complaint since the actual prices paid wouldn't change. A bigger problem is the variation in tax rates. When a merchant advertises a price of $10 today, they get $10 everywhere; if the tax were included, the net amount would vary between locations. With sales tax rates ranging from 0% to 12%, and many merchants' margins often being less than that, that would cause serious problems. 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?)
"Colin Youngs" wrote:
I would be very surprised to hear of any European country where retail prices for non-trade customers are quoted net of tax. I can't claim knowledge of every part of the world, but I thought this was a peculiarly North American practice, more or less unknown elsewhere. That's because VAT is standard across a country. In the US there are thousands of taxing districts in every state, each with it's own adder to the base rate. |
E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
I would be very surprised to hear of any European country where retail
prices for non-trade customers are quoted net of tax. ... That's because VAT is standard across a country. In the US there are thousands of taxing districts in every state, each with it's own adder to the base rate. That's not really the case. Some states have lots of tax districts, e.g. here in New York where every county and many cities set their own sales tax rate. But some states like Vermont have a single rate for the whole state, and some like New Hampshire and Delaware have no sales tax at all. For prices in stores, everything in the store is taxed at the same rate, but those prices are quoted net of tax, too. My understanding is that most prices in the US are quoted net of tax for purely political reasons, that the tax sceptics in the legislature want everyone to be aware of what the tax rate is, and how much the state is collecting. We will leave as an exercise for the student why prices for gasoline are invariably quoted gross, with all taxes included. R's, John |
E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:14:58 -0700, Robert Neville
wrote: That's because VAT is standard across a country. In the US there are thousands of taxing districts in every state, each with it's own adder to the base rate. Presumably only one applies to any given shop? Neil -- Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK |
E-ZPass, was CharlieCards v.v. Oyster (and Octopus?)
On 22-Jan-12 20:51, John Levine wrote:
I would be very surprised to hear of any European country where retail prices for non-trade customers are quoted net of tax. ... That's because VAT is standard across a country. In the US there are thousands of taxing districts in every state, each with it's own adder to the base rate. That's not really the case. Some states have lots of tax districts, e.g. here in New York where every county and many cities set their own sales tax rate. But some states like Vermont have a single rate for the whole state, and some like New Hampshire and Delaware have no sales tax at all. For prices in stores, everything in the store is taxed at the same rate, but those prices are quoted net of tax, too. Not true; some items are fully or partially tax-exempt, so the rate can vary even within a single store. For instance, my state taxes prepared food but not unprepared food, which are both found in grocery stores, and automobiles are exempt from local tax but not state tax, while other items sold at car dealerships are not exempt from either. Many states claim that residents of their state have to pay sales tax on products shipped by a seller in another state, whereas AFAIK no state taxes products shipped to a buyer another state. If the seller is in the same state as the buyer, the buyer's rate applies to shipped orders, not the seller's rate. And then there's Congress's Internet sales tax moratorium, so the same product ordered by the same buyer from the same seller may by taxed if the order was by phone or mail but not if online. Also, some buyers do not have to pay sales tax at all, and some buyers can have their sales tax refunded. My understanding is that most prices in the US are quoted net of tax for purely political reasons, that the tax sceptics in the legislature want everyone to be aware of what the tax rate is, and how much the state is collecting. That's one theory. We will leave as an exercise for the student why prices for gasoline are invariably quoted gross, with all taxes included. Excise taxes, eg. on motor fuels, are usually included in the price, but sales taxes are not. Most states exempt products from sales tax if subject to a specific excise tax, but some don't. In short, it's a complete mess. 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 22-Jan-12 20:51, John Levine wrote:
I would be very surprised to hear of any European country where retail prices for non-trade customers are quoted net of tax. ... That's because VAT is standard across a country. In the US there are thousands of taxing districts in every state, each with it's own adder to the base rate. That's not really the case. Some states have lots of tax districts, e.g. here in New York where every county and many cities set their own sales tax rate. But some states like Vermont have a single rate for the whole state, and some like New Hampshire and Delaware have no sales tax at all. For prices in stores, everything in the store is taxed at the same rate, but those prices are quoted net of tax, too. Not true; some items are fully or partially tax-exempt, so the rate can vary even within a single store. For instance, my state taxes prepared food but not unprepared food, which are both found in grocery stores, and automobiles are exempt from local tax but not state tax, while other items sold at car dealerships are not exempt from either. Many states claim that residents of their state have to pay sales tax on products shipped by a seller in another state, whereas AFAIK no state taxes products shipped to a buyer another state. If the seller is in the same state as the buyer, the buyer's rate applies to shipped orders, not the seller's rate. And then there's Congress's Internet sales tax moratorium, so the same product ordered by the same buyer from the same seller may by taxed if the order was by phone or mail but not if online. Also, some buyers do not have to pay sales tax at all, and some buyers can have their sales tax refunded. My understanding is that most prices in the US are quoted net of tax for purely political reasons, that the tax sceptics in the legislature want everyone to be aware of what the tax rate is, and how much the state is collecting. That's one theory. We will leave as an exercise for the student why prices for gasoline are invariably quoted gross, with all taxes included. Excise taxes, eg. on motor fuels, are usually included in the price, but sales taxes are not. Most states exempt products from sales tax if subject to a specific excise tax, but some don't. In short, it's a complete mess. 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 |
Non-vehicle owner insurance (was: cashless tolls)
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:43:56 +0000, Neil Williams
wrote: On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:16:38 +0000, Charles Ellson wrote: driving when not using their own vehicle. My own insurance used to cover driving other vehicles (but not for damage to that other vehicle) but that feature was dropped about 15-20y ago. Mine still does. Interesting. I have just had to dig out my insurance document to renew the round thing displayed in the windscreen and I am again covered for driving "a private motor car not owned by the Policyholder and not hired" etc.; it was previously just for my own vehicle or any substitute during repairs. Perhaps they put it back when they stopped insuring me without limit (its now only 20M UKP) a few years back ? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk