Sorry but you've clearly misunderstood my example...the pricetag text/form is an example that I have given, it was not a quote from any publication and nor need it be. It took me all of five seconds when the issue of VAT-inclusive pricing was first raised to determine that the quickest way of ensuring compliance, while still clearly highlighting the per item cost of the tax to the prospective instore buyer, was to alter pricetags and shelf prices to this sort of format.
It doesn't take a panel discussion, a committee of government officials, a seminar or a set of downloadable documents to be inventive, and to identify that a pricetag setting out **"item cost *plus* VAT amount = total sale price"** achieves the goal of complying with transparent inclusive pricing of products on the shelf. Retailers here are quite capable of thinking for themselves just as millions of retailers across the world in 140+ similar VAT-inclusive pricing countries have thought for themselves, and in many cases adopted labels like this (if they are particularly keen to highlight the VAT/government revenue portion of the final sale amount to the prospective buyer).
There is nothing to prevent a label that has three figures on it, e.g.
Imagine the justifiable outrage from business (and the obvious impracticality) if government demanded that pricetags all be identical, in the same format, shape, wording, size etc. There has never been any suggestion, to my knowledge, of government ever contemplating that approach in relation to VAT introduction.
Government doesn't instruct retailers on the exact form of invoices and receipts either. The regulations simply state that your VAT registration numbers must appear, the words "VAT invoice" must be used, and receipts must clearly identify the VAT amount of the final sale, etc etc. How businesses achieve that by design is left to their own discretion and invention, ensuring flexibility for particular circumstances.
To be honest, I might've thought that business groups and retailer associations could have come up with this idea themselves by now, and used their collective experience to recommend to one other and their members this form of price ticketing.
Yes of course I have shopped in Florida, where sales tax is added at the cash register. But we don't have a sales tax. We have a value added tax. And they are not the same thing. Which is why the government has mandated VAT inclusive pricing. Of all 140+ countries in the world that have pure VAT (i.e. a single value added consumption tax model, no variations, no exemptions, no extra or combined sales taxes in addition to the VAT) every one of them has VAT inclusive pricing. Because that is how value added tax works. Its not a tax levied solely on an end purchaser.
And instead of endlessly calling an apple an orange when the apple is now already law, BFR would be wiser to accept that their preference on this particular aspect of the implementation was disregarded. And to achieve the requirements of the law, but still highlight the exact amount per item that is going to the government, all they need is to implement are pricetags by Feb 28 that look like this example:
Yes, I know exactly what political outcomes a government achieves by inclusive pricing, but its a consequence, not a principal driver of the policy, as I outlined in response to a comment of yours in another thread. The pricing decision is driven by achieving efficiency in tax policy implementation and administration. Efficiency for government, for it is their tax, for their benefit. The bureaucrats write the mechanics of the policy, and it was the strenuous advice of the bureaucrats, expert consultants and the experiences they would've drawn on from over a hundred previous VAT implementation programs around the world that resulted in the final VAT rules which included your much disliked mandated inclusive pricing. This is how government policy formulation actually occurs.
So I don't believe a constant stream of insults across a wide range of forums and media, both in name and under assumed anonymity, assists lobby groups to achieve influence.
I have been careful and circumspect in addressing VAT issues. I have not offered my view on the merits of having the tax, on the government or respective political parties, on ordinary members of society, on the legitimate (or otherwise) role of taxation, or on the motivations of politicians. I have not overtly insulted them, I have not made side references to them, nor have I indulged in rage or personal attack or made sweeping or alarmist statements about the government administration or the nation's future. And without wanting to sound pious here, I really do think that in order to positively and constructively achieve medium to longer term influence, this softer, moderate approach, where the individual battles are carefully picked rather than fighting the entire war on all fronts, is the direction an organisation like yours should take if its to be regarded as anything more than a squeaky wheel. A siege and attack mentality never achieves a great deal. It most certainly does not achieve influence on policy makers and those who ultimately determine how implementation should occur. I wish you good luck.
I have not used the word "enforce" once nor anything remotely like it. You introduced this word.
Speaking out, when given ample opportunity to, against something that is wrong, and that negatively impacts your customers and their perception of your industry and your members, is a fundamental responsibility of an advocate. A lobby group exists to influence. It influences successfully by advocating for a position. You should advocate firmly for treating your customers fairly and advocate firmly against unscrupulous behavior by a small minority of retailers. It would in turn increase the level of respect afforded to your members, your organization and its wider viewpoints, which might otherwise be disregarded.
Compliance is and has always been a cost of doing business. The government didn't locate or supply your business with software or journals in which to record and account for things like your payroll taxes when you started out, or the ink and paper required for issuing receipts, and of course they won't do that for VAT compliance either.
There are already software systems on the island and in 140+ countries in the world, including I imagine the UK, New Zealand, even the oft-quoted Canada, that can produce now, or after minor modification, pricetags and shelf stickers that clearly state price plus tax. In fact some pricetags even do the unthinkable and state:
**"Item: $120.00 + VAT: $9.00**
**Total price: $129.00"**
*Three* figures! - to suit you, to suit the government, and to suit the single most important party to the transaction: your customer. Back to reality indeed: VAT-inclusive pricing, which both major political parties endorse, supported by the overwhelming international experience of 140+ countries all of whom require it in single consumption tax model revenue collection, in the interests of themselves, in the interests of transparency for consumers, but alas not in the interests of every single retailer or retail lobby group. But that's the nature of almost every type of tax - they are an unwelcome imposition.
Anyhow, you're clearly not terribly inconvenienced by re-pricing all of your own stock correctly, otherwise you wouldn't have all this time to complain about one simple mechanical aspect of VAT implementation that has already been adopted. Other retailers have already managed to do so with barely any fuss.
When all arguments are lost you resort to the old "there is no affordable technology that will do it." Well, not according to millions of retailers in over 140 countries who have no difficulty whatsoever with an inclusive VAT, and who have every label imaginable to ensure their customers are given accurate pricing on the spot.
The label I suggest for you is one that clearly, transparently, and legally states:
**"Price: $129.00 *(includes VAT of $9.00)*"**
How you have already managed to discover point-of-sale technology that enables you to print an actual paper receipt instore must be a source of daily marvel to you.
chairarranger says...
Sorry but you've clearly misunderstood my example...the pricetag text/form is an example that I have given, it was not a quote from any publication and nor need it be. It took me all of five seconds when the issue of VAT-inclusive pricing was first raised to determine that the quickest way of ensuring compliance, while still clearly highlighting the per item cost of the tax to the prospective instore buyer, was to alter pricetags and shelf prices to this sort of format.
It doesn't take a panel discussion, a committee of government officials, a seminar or a set of downloadable documents to be inventive, and to identify that a pricetag setting out **"item cost *plus* VAT amount = total sale price"** achieves the goal of complying with transparent inclusive pricing of products on the shelf. Retailers here are quite capable of thinking for themselves just as millions of retailers across the world in 140+ similar VAT-inclusive pricing countries have thought for themselves, and in many cases adopted labels like this (if they are particularly keen to highlight the VAT/government revenue portion of the final sale amount to the prospective buyer).
There is nothing to prevent a label that has three figures on it, e.g.
**"Item: $120.00 + VAT: $9.00**
**Total price: $129.00"**
Imagine the justifiable outrage from business (and the obvious impracticality) if government demanded that pricetags all be identical, in the same format, shape, wording, size etc. There has never been any suggestion, to my knowledge, of government ever contemplating that approach in relation to VAT introduction.
Government doesn't instruct retailers on the exact form of invoices and receipts either. The regulations simply state that your VAT registration numbers must appear, the words "VAT invoice" must be used, and receipts must clearly identify the VAT amount of the final sale, etc etc. How businesses achieve that by design is left to their own discretion and invention, ensuring flexibility for particular circumstances.
To be honest, I might've thought that business groups and retailer associations could have come up with this idea themselves by now, and used their collective experience to recommend to one other and their members this form of price ticketing.
On Super Value lacks documents to help price control
Posted 7 January 2015, 7:49 p.m. Suggest removal
chairarranger says...
Yes of course I have shopped in Florida, where sales tax is added at the cash register. But we don't have a sales tax. We have a value added tax. And they are not the same thing. Which is why the government has mandated VAT inclusive pricing. Of all 140+ countries in the world that have pure VAT (i.e. a single value added consumption tax model, no variations, no exemptions, no extra or combined sales taxes in addition to the VAT) every one of them has VAT inclusive pricing. Because that is how value added tax works. Its not a tax levied solely on an end purchaser.
And instead of endlessly calling an apple an orange when the apple is now already law, BFR would be wiser to accept that their preference on this particular aspect of the implementation was disregarded. And to achieve the requirements of the law, but still highlight the exact amount per item that is going to the government, all they need is to implement are pricetags by Feb 28 that look like this example:
**"Price: $129.00 *(includes VAT of $9.00)*"**
On Super Value lacks documents to help price control
Posted 6 January 2015, 10:33 p.m. Suggest removal
chairarranger says...
Yes, I know exactly what political outcomes a government achieves by inclusive pricing, but its a consequence, not a principal driver of the policy, as I outlined in response to a comment of yours in another thread. The pricing decision is driven by achieving efficiency in tax policy implementation and administration. Efficiency for government, for it is their tax, for their benefit. The bureaucrats write the mechanics of the policy, and it was the strenuous advice of the bureaucrats, expert consultants and the experiences they would've drawn on from over a hundred previous VAT implementation programs around the world that resulted in the final VAT rules which included your much disliked mandated inclusive pricing. This is how government policy formulation actually occurs.
So I don't believe a constant stream of insults across a wide range of forums and media, both in name and under assumed anonymity, assists lobby groups to achieve influence.
I have been careful and circumspect in addressing VAT issues. I have not offered my view on the merits of having the tax, on the government or respective political parties, on ordinary members of society, on the legitimate (or otherwise) role of taxation, or on the motivations of politicians. I have not overtly insulted them, I have not made side references to them, nor have I indulged in rage or personal attack or made sweeping or alarmist statements about the government administration or the nation's future. And without wanting to sound pious here, I really do think that in order to positively and constructively achieve medium to longer term influence, this softer, moderate approach, where the individual battles are carefully picked rather than fighting the entire war on all fronts, is the direction an organisation like yours should take if its to be regarded as anything more than a squeaky wheel. A siege and attack mentality never achieves a great deal. It most certainly does not achieve influence on policy makers and those who ultimately determine how implementation should occur.
I wish you good luck.
On FNM planning to repeal parts of tax
Posted 6 January 2015, 8:33 p.m. Suggest removal
chairarranger says...
I have not used the word "enforce" once nor anything remotely like it. You introduced this word.
Speaking out, when given ample opportunity to, against something that is wrong, and that negatively impacts your customers and their perception of your industry and your members, is a fundamental responsibility of an advocate. A lobby group exists to influence. It influences successfully by advocating for a position. You should advocate firmly for treating your customers fairly and advocate firmly against unscrupulous behavior by a small minority of retailers. It would in turn increase the level of respect afforded to your members, your organization and its wider viewpoints, which might otherwise be disregarded.
On Super Value lacks documents to help price control
Posted 6 January 2015, 8:03 p.m. Suggest removal
chairarranger says...
We agree on one thing then: History will be kind to one of us!
I wish you no ill will: I am not your enemy.
On FNM planning to repeal parts of tax
Posted 6 January 2015, 7:33 p.m. Suggest removal
chairarranger says...
Compliance is and has always been a cost of doing business. The government didn't locate or supply your business with software or journals in which to record and account for things like your payroll taxes when you started out, or the ink and paper required for issuing receipts, and of course they won't do that for VAT compliance either.
There are already software systems on the island and in 140+ countries in the world, including I imagine the UK, New Zealand, even the oft-quoted Canada, that can produce now, or after minor modification, pricetags and shelf stickers that clearly state price plus tax. In fact some pricetags even do the unthinkable and state:
**"Item: $120.00 + VAT: $9.00**
**Total price: $129.00"**
*Three* figures! - to suit you, to suit the government, and to suit the single most important party to the transaction: your customer. Back to reality indeed: VAT-inclusive pricing, which both major political parties endorse, supported by the overwhelming international experience of 140+ countries all of whom require it in single consumption tax model revenue collection, in the interests of themselves, in the interests of transparency for consumers, but alas not in the interests of every single retailer or retail lobby group. But that's the nature of almost every type of tax - they are an unwelcome imposition.
Anyhow, you're clearly not terribly inconvenienced by re-pricing all of your own stock correctly, otherwise you wouldn't have all this time to complain about one simple mechanical aspect of VAT implementation that has already been adopted. Other retailers have already managed to do so with barely any fuss.
On FNM planning to repeal parts of tax
Posted 6 January 2015, 7:22 p.m. Suggest removal
chairarranger says...
No, you simply transition all of your pricetags by Feb 28 to ones that transparently state, in the spirit of full compliance:
**"Price: $129.00 *(includes VAT of $9.00)*"**
On VAT exclusive pricing 'definitely way to go'
Posted 6 January 2015, 5:38 p.m. Suggest removal
chairarranger says...
When all arguments are lost you resort to the old "there is no affordable technology that will do it." Well, not according to millions of retailers in over 140 countries who have no difficulty whatsoever with an inclusive VAT, and who have every label imaginable to ensure their customers are given accurate pricing on the spot.
The label I suggest for you is one that clearly, transparently, and legally states:
**"Price: $129.00 *(includes VAT of $9.00)*"**
How you have already managed to discover point-of-sale technology that enables you to print an actual paper receipt instore must be a source of daily marvel to you.
On FNM planning to repeal parts of tax
Posted 6 January 2015, 5:23 p.m. Suggest removal
chairarranger says...
The tax isn't hidden on this pricetag:
**"Price: $129.00 *(includes VAT of $9.00)*"**
Its right there, $9.00, on the item, in black & white (or color if you prefer).
On FNM planning to repeal parts of tax
Posted 6 January 2015, 4:54 p.m. Suggest removal
chairarranger says...
Why would customers, tourists or locals, need to calculate anything in their heads if your pricetags stated:
**"Price: $129.00 *(includes VAT of $9.00)*"** ?
You seem deeply fearful of transparency.
On FNM planning to repeal parts of tax
Posted 6 January 2015, 4:34 p.m. Suggest removal