> > You say the merchant remits the sales tax to the
>> government. How can you interpret this as other than
>> the merchant paying sales tax?
>
>You can do it by going to a place where there are sales taxes and no
>sales taxes in close geographic proximity and then comparing retail
>prices: I assure you, the consumer is paying the tax. Try Portland
>Oregon, for instance.
Perhaps you would care to elaborate? If there are two shops selling the same item in near proximity and one charges higher prices (because of sales tax) then, all things being equal, why would customers not simply take their business to the shop with the lower prices?
Why would any customer happily pay a higher price, just because one includes tax? It defies logic and human nature. It defies the rules of capitalism.
I don't understand what you are arguing?
> > Are the retailers unanimous in their admiration for sales tax? If it
>> doesn't cost them anything then they ought to be. You sure they
>> wouldn't prefer to change the mix to other taxes?
>
>Have you compared places that charge sales tax with those who sell on
>the Internet and avoid having to charge it (in a lot of cases) ...?
No, I haven't. What is your point? I would expect that those retailers offering greater convenience, including more convenient location, would be able to charge a premium though. Those who sell on the internet would generally speaking have to charge less for the inconvenience, irrespective of sales tax.
I must say that I find this stubborn refusal to admit that prices are determined by market forces quite interesting. Obviously there are some people here who sincerely believe that prices are set by the cost of putting things on the market. If a vendor's costs increase, then prices will automatically increase to compensate, you appear to think. This is not the case, if one vendor's costs increase and a competitor's costs do not increase, then the first vendor's price must remain the same, or the vendor charging higher prices will be put out of business. It doesn't matter the reason the costs increase, you cannot simply "pass on" the costs of tax as if market forces don't exist.
Even if the tax is uniformly applied, which is difficult to do with local sales taxes, consumers are apt to adjust their purchasing patterns and spend their money on something else.
>Retailers are against sales taxes, because they get blamed for them.
But not because retailers have to pay them, you think? It seems hard to believe that consumers would blame retailers for a government tax, yet you obviously do believe this. A classic case of cognitive dissonance, you are firmly attached to the notion that consumers, not retailers, bear the entire burden of sales tax. So you have to rationalise the incongruous fact that retailers are hostile to a tax which shouldn't be a problem to them according to the dogma that consumers bear the full cost.
So your belief that consumers pay sales tax makes you believe customers blame the local shop-keeper for a government tax, AS WELL AS forcing you to believe that retailers simply pass on the cost as if market forces don't exist.
Fascinating. This is obviously a very powerful and deeply rooted myth.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas