The price of jackets is determined by supply and demand, if the price of jackets is slightly higher in Pennsylvania than "MD", then I suspect the supply/demand balance is responsible.
> Likewise, if I purchase the said jacket
>online from a retailer located out of state where I reside, I will pay no
>sales tax either. In all these three scenarios, retailers get $100 for the
>item, regardless of what the sales tax is.
In all cases, the price paid is paid to the retailer. The retailer gets it all. Of course the retailer has costs to meet, wholesale price of the merchandise, wages, rent, taxes etc. So the retailers net profit is a whole lot less than the retail price and taxes will vary from one place to another, just as rents and everything else will vary from place to place.
> The consumer, otoh will or will
>not pay the sales tax, depending how he/she will make the purchase.
The consumer will not pay the sales tax, that is the responsibility of the retailer. Just as it is the responsibility of the retailer to pay his rent and his wages.
> >From a macroeconomic perspective, all taxes on production are paid by the
>final consumer of goods, not by the intermediaries.
That's your opinion.
> The reason why some
>capitalists oppose taxation is not to reduce their cost but to gain
>competitive advantage vis a vis other capitalists.
Yes. But doesn't that contradict your assertion that taxes are paid by the consumer? It would be no advantage to the capitalist of this particular input cost (taxes), uniquely, was somehow borne entirely by the purchaser.
> For example, if state A
>imposes higher sales taxes than state B, merchants in state A may fear that
>consumers will favor merchants in state B, who are competitors of merchants
>in state A. In fact, there are bus loads of shoppers from NY to PA who
>travel there on their shopping sprees for the sole purpose of avoiding
>paying 8 -9.5% NY sales tax on clothing.
Thank you, as I said prices are determined by supply and demand. So supply and demand has set the market price of clothing as what is charged in PA. If retailers in NY persist in charging more, because they are living under the delusion that they can just charge whatever they feel like, then buyers will go elsewhere. Of course of incomes are higher in NY, then possibly demand is higher there and that would be reflected in a higher market price. Which would be independent of any tax costs.
Tragically, there are many people in business who don't comprehend the business environment they operate in. Who delude themselves that they are free to simply "pass on" any and all extra input costs by increasing their sales price. Whether that be taxes, or whatever it makes no difference, they can't. Even if a monopoly situation can be achieved, such as for instance an extra cost such as tax being imposed on 100% of clothing retailers simultaneously, with no loopholes, it still doesn't mean clothing retailers are safe passing on the extra cost. Because purchasers always have the option of shifting their buying habits, buying less clothes with the same money. In that event, retailers might find themselves getting more per item, but no more total sales income. Thus less net profit overall. This would tend to put downward pressure on prices of course so that the end result would be the margins of everyone in the supply chain would be squeezed. End result, tax is a cost to the retailer and on down through the supply chain.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas