heynotcoolman's comments

...and I ain't sayin' I'm too bright!

It actually sounds like a horrible startup name from about seven years ago.

I am rather surprised that so many users here--who are presumably some of the smarter people out there--supposed that from this email that B&H had found some sort of "loophole" or "workaround," twisting themselves into pretzels thinking about it, rather than simply assuming as a default that it was some sort of discounting promotion gimmick. That was the only thing that came to my mind from square one as soon as I read it.

Even ignoring the compliance issues the government would never do that. They already do not do that with income taxes--having changed the system to "pay as you go" as soon as they hiked it (WWII, then--surprise!--never cut it for peacetime) to levels where it would matter to most Americans.

Instead they "withhold," helping themselves to an interest-free loan and obscuring the bill so the average Joe grumbles a bit sometime when he sees his pay stub but has little awareness of his actual tax liability; then he jumps for joy at his "refund" April 15 when the government kindly returns his money that was never theirs in the first place. Hooray!

We have several targeted excise taxes that work exactly this way at both the Federal and state levels. Gas, alcohol, tobacco, etc. (Even, since Obamacare, tanning!)

I thank God this is not the custom anywhere in this country for general sales taxes (all state and local). All "having to show the final amount" means is that the tax is hidden from the consumer in his day to day transactions, instead of staring him in the face every time--even requiring some quick arithmetic on his part. The last thing we need is even less awareness from the public of just how much of their money the government is taking from them. (Income tax withholding has already done an excellent job of that.)

I am constantly shocked, in fact, that in the name of "consumer protection" our politicians have not already hit upon this ingenious way to increase taxpayer complacency. Give it time, I am sure--especially since "being like other countries" (only insofar as they have more government involvement in their citizens' lives, of course) is the increasingly open and fervent declaration of politicians over here.

And in fact jurisdictions around the world and throughout history have typically done essentially exactly that--when sales taxes exceed a certain number (I think it's around 12%) they switch to "excise" to temper public awareness and outrage. And then the dam is burst; they can hike all they want. No thank you.