h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oops - I totally missed indirect taxation (which, I suppose is why it is used so successfully ).

For example, on my latest Ryanair ticket to Manchester, the cost before tax for 2 people return was IEP18.00 - and after airport tax? A shocking IEP69.18

Daylight robbery, I say!

If you want Daylight Robbery with indirect taxation, have a look at the price of petrol and booze in the UK.

Another one I came up against last summer - a tax for using the airport when I hired a car in the US. It was charged by the day for a 2 week holiday, so I had to pay for 12 days when I wasn't at the airport at all

True - both are way over the top, but this is due to the dual use of taxation - (1) to raise revenue and (2) to decrease demand.
Unfortunately (2) only works when the taxation is so massively warped as to cut into the purchase decision....which, in the case of booze hasn't really cut in yet. (Well - not for me )

As for paying an airport tax even when you aren't in the airport - that strikes me as plain stupid. Sort of like paying for a yearly television licence when you're only in the country on odd weekends...d'oh

Wouldn't the TV license be another kind of tax? In the USA we don't have such a thing; you can have as many radios, TVs, VCRs, and CD players as you like without paying anything more than the sales tax (VAT) for buying it.

The TV licence is a cleverly disguised bit of indirect taxation, in that it is *supposedly* a fund which pays for the operation of the BBC - an advertisement free public broadcaster. Of course, just as the road tax doesn't pay for roads, so the TV licence doesn't only go directly to making television programs...and what is more, it is a tax for which there is no representation (the head of the BBC not being an elected position). I believe the American model of dealing with taxation without representation needs to be applied here...except in that BBC tea is so undrinkable that it would be doing them a favour to dump it in the Thames

In the US public broadcasting is funded by grants from the federal government directly, as well as tax-deductible contributions from individuals and corporations. It would actually, I think, be better to have a national independent broadcasting corporation because then they wouldn't have to raise money all the time. Those pledge periods are always the time when they run all the shows with large audiences, so the public TV then is really boring. I think the BBC does a good job, for the most part, and I am glad that it doesn't rely on unremarkable transatlantic imports to furnish the bulk of its programming.

The Sales Tax/VAT scam is another one that gets you muttering under your breath. If you look at the ads in the back of PC mags, there are lots of tempting-looking prices in large type. Then, as your eyes get used to it, you see what appear to be small smudges next to them. On extremely close examination, these turn out to be the prices (inc. VAT) that you actually have to pay. For some reason tyre and exhaust places are prone to quoting you prices ex. VAT over the phone, too, so you turn up to buy 2 tyres that they've told you are £39.99 each, and they say 'That'll be £119.99 please, sir'.

In the States, they even do this in ordinary shops. You turn up at the counter with a CD that's got a sticker on it that says $9.99, and they ask you for $10.59!

The TV licence is a bit weird. As I understand it, you can have as many TV sets as you like in your house, but you mustn't watch more than one channel simultaneously (or something equally ridiculous). You become liable for a licence as soon as you buy something that can receive a TV signal (even if you can prove that you never do receive such a signal).

Do they have TV license police who break into your house to see if you are watching picture-in-picture or some other 2-channel viewing? Can you pay an extra license to watch the 2d channel?

I've never heard of any restriction to the number of channels you can watch, I think there used to be a limit of 3 TVs per houshold, (I doubt anyone ever bought two TV licenses though.
You do have to buy a license even if you can't receive BBC programmes, which is silly
On the other hand I think BBC programming is excellent on the whole, many of the best shows on TV come from the BBC and many of the best radio shows too, Radio 4(I think) has some really cool comedy/quiz shows many of which make the transition to TV.
a lot of the things you might see on PBS appears on BBC 2 or even 1 Antiques roadshow for instance,
basically I think the license fee is OK (didn't know they spent it on things other than TV.)
I have tried to sit through a PBS radio fund raising week it's like a permanent children in need sooo dull.
much prefer what the BBC does (even if they don't have prairie home companion)

17% Sales tax?

Sales taxes in the US go directly to state governments, and the rates vary from state to state. California has the highest in the Union, at 8.25% Californians are so sick of their high taxes that you cannot possibly get a bond issue on the ballot passed that proposes to raise any tax in any way. The idea is that they take enough money already, and if it isn't enough, it's because they need to spend it smarter. But then, no government has ever been able to spend money wisely, so why should California's be any different?

Colonel

I'm no expert on US sales tax but believe that is a cumulative tax. That is if a company purchases a part for a product they pay sales tax on it. Sales taxes paid by the company cannot be reclaimed against the tax collected.

Value added tax paid by a company on products and services can be reclaimed against the value added tax collected on sales.

With value added tax the effective rate of tax is the same as the stated rate. This may not be the case with US sales tax where the effective rate of tax may be higher than the published rate due to the compounding effect.

However, I've probably wrong.

By the way, VAT in Ireland used to be 22% !!!

(-:

From Distant Shores

VAT in Sweden ranges from 0% on some newspapers and magazines to 17% on food to 25% on other stuff, like clothes, electronic gadgets and motorised vehicles.

And with most stores adding about 100% of the purchase price on an item, you can count on you paying about 125% of the initial purchase price as an end user/customer. So an item that the company buys for 10 of whatever currency you want to use for comparison, you pay 22,50. Isn't that nice?

US sales tax is 0% on essentials like most food products and newspapers. The 8.25% covers everything else. Then you can also get what is called a luxury tax or sin tax, depending on the product, that could be collected by state or national government, or both. Alcohol and tobacco products are popular things to tax, and so is gasoline. The amount of the gas taxes are published at the pump: 38 cents a gallon goes to the national government, and 35 cents a gallon goes to the state. At approximately $1.50 per gallon at the pump with taxes added, when you fill your tank with 88 octane you are paying, effectively, a tax of nearly 100%.

Compounding effect aside, I would still think the overall sales tax rate here would be lower, just on the oft mentioned fact that things are generally less expensive here in the States. European tourists come to New York just to shop, and then spend their money like it's going out of style, but that's because they can get so much more for their dollar.

Only 100% tax on gas? Pah!

I read in the paper the other day that of every £34 spent on petrol £29 goes to HM Government. Now _that's_ tax!

Well, in New York they just removed the sales tax on articles of clothing under $110. So now those European tourists can visit NYC and buy as many pairs of $22.50 Levis and $80 blouses as they want and not pay sales tax. Come on down!

there is a whole forum on the cost of gas in the UK something like 625% tax now hows that for a luxury tax
alchohol and tobbaco are equally fiercely taxed (or almost, not sure of the exact percentages)