A 2009 report by the Canadian Tax Foundation found that Canada was the **only** VAT/GST country in the world in which prices were advertised and ticketed **exclusive** of tax.

Cash register receipts show the VAT being paid, but the price advertised is the price that one pays. It also noted that in many countries, consumer protection legislation requires that prices always be shown tax-included as part of honesty in advertising principles.

And according to the International VAT Monitor report (produced by the International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, October 2009): "A GST or a VAT is in place in every OECD country other than the United States, and in virtually every country in the world that has a market economy (more than 140 countries). **In all or virtually all of those countries, prices are advertised tax-included.**"

Canada was the exception. And that is because it has a mixed model consumption tax of VAT *plus* sales taxes with provincial variations in rates and numerous exemptions. All of which The Bahamas does not have.

You need a new example. And to embrace reality.

The tax here is inclusive because we have one VAT only and no additional sales taxes. A single rate, no variation, consistently applied, no exemptions, no provincial differences. Unlike Canada which has a mixed consumption tax model. Unlike the USA which has a sales tax not a VAT.

Every breath that is wasted by the retailers federation arguing against inclusive pricing (which has already been adopted by government, is already in effect in some stores, and will universally take effect by Feb 28) is lost time that could otherwise be spent re-pricing floor stock and lobbying strongly for fiscal responsibility and freedom of information laws to protect taxpaying consumers and business from the excesses of unrestrained government spending.

"The whole country is more competitively priced" by not telling a customer what the total price of the product is until they reach into their wallet at the cash register?? How does this make a country's goods more competitively priced than the neighboring country? The customer is not stupid.

Why not make everything "exclusive" of the ticket price...using your logic the Bahamas could be the most competitively priced nation on the planet.

Picture yourself buying a Nautica sweater at, for example, His Fashion down on Windsor Field Road. You see a ticket price on the rack of $75. You try it on, it fits, you have $80 in your wallet, you head to the cashier only to be told "That will be $103.20 please."

"We price everything exclusive of some costs of production. So thats $75 for the sweater, *plus* 4% for stock storage, handling & delivery, *plus* 11% for promotional advertising that might have gotten you into the store, *plus* 5% for contribution to instore lighting & utility bills, *plus* 8% for staff wages associated with selling this item to you, *plus* 7.5% for value added tax on the whole amount. A bargain, wouldn't you say?"

Exclusive shelf pricing of goods does not make VAT smarter.

Canada does **not** have an equivalent consumption tax regime to ours. Canada has both a value added tax *plus* variable provincial sales taxes levied on the same products and services, and in some cases a harmonized (combined) consumption tax of varying rate and reach depending on the province, *and* a wide range of tax exempted goods (exempted from one or another or all of the consumption taxes).

We have a VAT **only** and no sales tax = a single rate, no variation, consistently applied, no exemptions, no provincial differences.

Starkly different to Canada's two types of consumption tax on the same goods and services = a multitude of rates, wide variation, inconsistently applied, many exemptions.

We should expect more from BFR representatives who are commenting here than simply a repetitious and misleading mantra, comparing apples with oranges, and suggesting that the solution to almost all VAT issues is simply to require customers to always carry pocket calculators when reading a price tag on a Tommy Hilfiger shirt, so they can compute exactly how much the retailer (who is neither young nor particularly savvy) will demand from their wallet at the cash register.

Once again:

>Canada has a value added tax plus a variable provincial sales tax, and in some cases a harmonized (combined) consumption tax of varying rate and reach depending on the province.

Once again:

>Canada has a VAT plus sales taxes (of many different rates depending on the province) levied on the same products/services, with a vast number of exempted products that are not taxed at all = a multitude of rates, wide variation, inconsistently applied, many variations.

Once again:

>We have a VAT only and no sales tax = a single rate, no variation, consistently applied, no exemptions, no provincial differences. Extremely straightforward.

This is why inclusive pricing is mandated here but not in Canada. But if you want a new sales tax added on top of the existing VAT here then by all means lobby the government for one, even vary the rate between islands if you want added complexity, and completely exempt a few product or service groups, and then you'll have a consumption tax system equivalent to Canada (a VAT plus a variable sales tax, with a range of items exempted from one or both taxes). You may strengthen your argument very marginally for exclusive pricing, but you will have great trouble explaining that to the BFR members and fashionista customers.

I've replied to the substance of your comments in the thread below. As for the rest of your ongoing commentary on domestic politics, the government and your assessment of its performance, and your views and allegations about how it operates, this has no particular bearing on the very specific topic of inclusive/exclusive pricing which is what this article was and is about. For this reason I haven't shared my own views, commentary and insight on these topics, which might in fact surprise you. Commentary and opining about the state of the government might be useful for the press releases, newsletters and speeches to the membership but it is not relevant at all to a narrow discussion about the mechanics of efficient consumption tax policy implementation.

I have similarly disregarded your insults and personal attacks in this comments thread to date, but I am happy to raise them with you in a open public forum, where you can tell me to my face that I am thick, an ignorant government stooge of the highest order who speaks utter nonsense, who knows nothing about running a business in the Bahamas, a preacher of hot air ignorance, in need of having my head checked, an idiot, a complete idiot, a moron, a flag waving simpleton, an economic novice, really thick, imbecilic, pathetic, small brained, a die hard moronic PLP, a government minded drone, asleep, stupid, a fool with a puny brain, and other such insults which you apparently think are ok, under a cloak of assumed anonymity, to hurl at people who offer reasoned alternative viewpoints on matters of policy in which you have a very clear, personal, vested interest. We'll then see how each of your unfounded accusations against me stack up.

Such big talk. I certainly hope you can walk it when the time comes.

What part of
>Canada has a value added tax plus a variable provincial sales tax, and in some cases a harmonized (combined) consumption tax of varying rate and reach depending on the province

suggests to you that I am not "admitting" Canada has a VAT? This is the fourth time I have clearly stated they have a VAT.

For the fifth time: Canada has a VAT plus sales taxes (of many different rates depending on the province) levied on the same products/services, with a vast number of exempted products that are not taxed at all = a multitude of rates, wide variation, inconsistently applied, many variations.

We have a VAT **only** and no sales tax = a single rate, no variation, consistently applied, no exemptions, no provincial differences. Extremely straightforward.

And this is - if you take the time to read the literature (as some who have an interest in operating successful retail businesses that are not in a constant state of clash with bureaucracy have done) - precisely why inclusive pricing has been mandated. Because it is one rate, it is not variable based on product/service type or region, and it is consistently applied to every product/service in the market.

If we had sales taxes on top of the VAT, and variations and wide ranging exemptions too, you might pull together a shred of a cohesive argument that, like Canada, it may be more efficient for the retailer to calculate all taxes (excluding exempted products) together at the cash register. But we do not. And so its not more efficient to have exclusive pricing, and so inclusive pricing is being adopted like every other country that has a VAT only, of a single rate, with no variation, consistently applied, no exemptions. You keep asking me if I "get it", well, do you get that?

Again I repeat: Our tax is like Britain, most of Europe, Australia and New Zealand. *Our tax is not like the USA or Canada.* It has got nothing to do with the familiarity of consumers to other systems, target market mobility, product or price interchangeability, ease for the retailer, or any other variable you seem intent on adding to the mix to cloud the basis for which tax inclusive pricing has been mandated here. And that basis is efficient tax collection. Efficient for the revenue recipient (government).

Tax is for the benefit of government. Tax is not for the benefit of business or consumers. We may not like it but this is what a "tax" is. Even a freshman economics student know this and has the objectivity to recognize it.

Clever enough to know that a Tommy Hilfiger shirt sold in Florida, for example, will have a 'tax exclusive' price tag, with the US *sales tax* levied only at the point of final purchase. But the same Tommy Hilfiger shirt bought at, lets say, Marathon Mall will instead have a 'VAT inclusive' price tag, with the Bahamian *value added tax* having been added at all the points of landed transfer, through each stage of production, to final consumption.

Incidentally, the BFR "co-chair" makes some good and valid points from time-to-time...

http://www.thenassauguardian.com/bahama…

...except when it comes to the mechanics of VAT pricing. The bellicose often get ignored, as do name callers and those who play the politics of personal attack. Perhaps a more 'softly softly' approach would serve BFR members much better in the longer term than simply 'firing things off' at people who might hold a counterview? Much like contributors to comments threads such as this one.

>"Basically what I expected... I understand why the government is doing it... its a necessary thing."
>"It is going to benefit the country, so I have no problem with it."
>"It doesn't bother me."

Three "average Bahamian" you talk of, when presented with the reality of a VAT. http://www.thenassauguardian.com/news/5…

In a few weeks time, thanks to inclusive pricing, they won't need to carry pocket calculators when shopping or use their mobile phones standing at the shelves to calculate what their items of food will actually cost them when they head to the checkout. Its called progress :-)

You are repeating yourself. For someone who has "nothing more to say on the matter" you are about as consistent as your argument: not very. I have addressed your factual errors by repeating myself, for your exclusive benefit, in the comment thread below.