It is little wonder the government has had to implement a VAT when the level of economic understanding in the business community and its representative organizations is so rudimentary that we have to read comments like yours. The country is in debt due to ignorance, shouting in the face of reason, self interested individuals, and a failure to accept reality. You pontificate and yell, selectively quote and then misquote, but you seemingly never read or listen. To repeat my earlier comments in the previous thread:

>Do some homework on the difference between a sales tax and a value added tax. They are not the same thing despite your obvious blind spot. The USA has a sales tax, variable from state to state. 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.
>Then there is us. Spot the difference. We have a value added tax, no variation, consistently applied at one rate across one nation. Our tax is like Britain, most of Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Our tax is *not* like the USA or Canada. Our tax is - repeat - a *value added tax*.

You don't like it, but its fact. Its also the reason you need to re-price your car parts and your homewares by the end of February, which is fast approaching.

As previously pointed out to you, I don't work for the government, or any agency of the government, and no amount of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting while simultaneously burying your head in the sand will make you correct when you are, on almost all counts, entirely wrong.

Mr D’Aguilar is entirely correct here in looking at the bigger picture. The VAT consultants told them the same thing. Rushed policy implementation will not serve Bahamians well. Coupled with the VAT introduction should be clear, unambiguous fiscal responsibility guidelines, a commitment to open government, and a suite of transparency and accountability measures to ensure revenue is used to reduce government debt, curb government spending and eliminate government waste.

I get it, but its not the reason. Its a consequence.

The "anger" is debatable - everybody knows the VAT was coming and has arrived and there has been no mass domestic collapse or civil disobedience. Resistance, sure, but with organizations like AID still stuck back on the inclusive/exclusive debate, which had already been decided the moment it became a value added tax and not a sales tax, and a few paternalistic grumpy old folk spraying personal insults in online comments threads, there is not much for the government bureaucrats to worry themselves about insofar as general acceptance of the tax is concerned.

In the words of one large retailer quoted here in the Trib a couple of days ago "the sky is not falling" as a result of the VAT's introduction.

The most effective tax policy is one that is implemented the most efficiently for the purposes of the collector (government). It is most efficient for government to seamlessly integrate a consumption tax into the price of goods and services at each stage of the process where value is added, with as little ongoing fuss as possible. Yes that helps with their PR too, obviously. But primarily inclusive pricing is in the interests of the government from an efficiency standpoint. This is a tax for government. Its not a tax for business. So its about what the collector wants not what the payer prefers. That is government, people. Revenue collection is not a taxpayer driven system and people with a business mind should surely understand that, with detachment instead of emotion. Similar to when a private sector landlord collects rent he or she seeks payment in the form that best suits him or her. Not the form of payment that the tenant ideally would prefer or using the system the tenant finds works best for them.

And to leave no doubt as to what customers, at each stage, pay in tax to government, the receipt shows VAT as a clear line item. Its on the receipt because there is no way possible to receive goods or services without the VAT having been paid, and having been added at each step in the production chain. Not added later like a sales tax is, burdened solely on the final end purchaser, (as is the case in the USA and in all provinces of Canada too).

Our VAT is **not** an "end point tax" (which is the premise of your whole argument). Were it an end point sales tax then this would be a valid debate, but its not.

It is good that you have nothing more to say on the matter, because almost everything you have said to this point bears almost no resemblance to tax policy implementation. Instead you have embarked on a predictably cantankerous rant against the politics of a government you clearly do not like, replete with personal attacks and name-calling against those with a counter view (and a less self-interested view) than you, and with whom you find it difficult to mount your own argument that is based on facts and proper research and an understanding of the difference between two very basic variants of consumption tax. Just like Jason Watson.

There is nothing particularly unique about the tax that we've had imposed on us here, its not something different or unusual, and nor are our consumers or tourists particularly unique or special when it comes to their behavior. Aside from your slightly unhinged level of rage, and your desire to instruct and bark orders and insults at others, what is most unusual is that in this debate organizations like AID have such a poor grasp of tax policy mechanics and the basic difference between a sales tax and a value added tax. That poor understanding extends, in all its clear and unvarnished magnificence evidenced by your contributions to this comments thread, to you.

And back to the name-calling and revolutionary soapbox we go. For someone who quotes Wikipedia as their source for research (and who subsequently claims the most heavily indebted nation in the western world to be the most successful economy) it is a bit rich for you to call anyone on earth an "economic novice".

The answer to your question has already been given. Do some homework on the difference between a *sales tax* and a *value added tax*. They are not the same thing despite your obvious blind spot. The USA has a sales tax, variable from state to state. 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.

Then there is us. Spot the difference. We have a value added tax, no variation, consistently applied at one rate across one nation. Our tax is like Britain, most of Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Our tax is not like the USA or Canada. Our tax is - repeat - a *value added tax*.

So go buy the new labels, re-price your car parts correctly and with integrity, and quit dreaming that you can claim to be "competitive" simply by advertising prices that are less than the prices your customers end up paying when they walk up to your cash register and open their wallets. Its deceptive, lazy, misleading and wrong. And that's why inclusive pricing is here now, (like other countries with one single, non-variable, consistently-applied value-added consumption tax), and its here to stay.

You can fool some of the people some of the time. You cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Even with your sanctimonious ranting. There is nothing "competitive" about hiding the full cost to consumers (all of whom are now well aware of the existence of the VAT and can see it on their receipt) on a price tag that deliberately understates the amount I will be asked for from my wallet at the checkout. Retailers who think this is "competitive" or good business practice don't deserve to be in business. Judging by your ill-informed understanding of tax policy implementation and your rabid defence of a retail pricing system that serves purely to deliberately understate the final cost of goods produced as part of an incrementally taxed production chain, consumers won't have to endure your business for very much longer as VAT inclusive pricing takes full effect here. Good luck on your move to Canada.

Aside from more minor factors such as administrative error, handling and transit damage, and binned perishables, the single biggest factor in shrinkage is theft. Theft by employees and theft by shoplifters. Why can't we just say "theft" here instead of an accounting euphemism?

It is you who needs a course in basic economics to better understand the difference between a sales tax (which is what the US has, varying in rates from state to state) and a Value Added Tax (which we have, New Zealand and Australia has, and most of Europe has, levied nationally at the same rate). Sales tax is customarily priced on the shelf *exclusive* of the tax. The tax burden falls wholly on the end purchaser. A VAT is customarily priced on the shelf *inclusive* of the tax. The tax burden falls across each stage/participant in the production and eventual sale process. It is tricky and deceptive to attempt to use sales tax labelling conventions in a VAT environment, and any retailer with half a brain knows this. Evidently not you or Jason Watson, however. If we want to draw comparisons with US shelf pricing then we need to have the same tax system. We do not. This debate is about the mechanics of implementation. Consumers should not be required to undertake mental arithmetic or carry a calculator wherever and whenever they shop. Perhaps educate yourself before spraying insults at others when your basic argument fails.

Sensible, rational comments here. Even the VAT expert consultants made it absolutely clear that freedom of information and fiscal responsibility acts were essential components of a VAT implementation. They advised on enacting both first, before rolling out the tax. This is where public pressure must now be intensely applied.

The failure of government to accept this advice is the real outrage...not arguing about whether pricetags are inclusive or exclusive:

> Earlier this year, New Zealand
> experts... emphasised the importance
> of having a Freedom of Information Act
> (FOIA) and a Fiscal Responsibility Act
> in place before introducing VAT.