It doesn’t matter if you’re from out of state or not. The tax is assessed based on the place of purchase, not on the residence of the purchaser.
Really? I’m pretty sure there was no sales tax on clothes in NY. Or at least, there wasn’t when I left 5 years ago.
One other reason not mentioned. Washington state has a sales tax on most non food items. Residents of Oregon and Alaska, which do not have a sales tax, do not have to pay state sales tax in Washington. A law was passed to allow the residents of these states to not pay sales tax to hopefully encourage folks from those states to spend money in ours. Oregon has a value added tax that is included in the price of many items such as appliance and furniture. Based on that, it is cheaper for an Oregonian to buy a new washer in Washington than Oregon. Of course, many Washingtonians buy buy stuff in Oregon to avoid the sales tax in Washington.
Nope, there’s been sales tax on clothes since forever in New York (at least downstate, for as long as I can remember, which is 30+ years now).
That situation has changed, again at least for New York State. NY residents are now obliged to pay sales and use tax on any items purchased either out of state and “imported,” or from an online merchant, if New York tax hasn’t already been paid. You can either be very anal about it and add up precisely what you owe from your receipts, or pay some flat fee based on your income (which turns out to be a pretty small amount for Joe Middle-class, IIRC between $17-30 per year). Now, if you’ve paid tax in another state it is possible to request at least some tax credit from New York State - probably useful for big-ticket items, not worth it for the small stuff.
Actually, that’s not always true. I don’t know if this is only for cars, or only in Illinois, or whatever, but I have been informed that when you buy a car in Illinois they charge the tax for the county you live in, not where you buy it. It strikes me as possible that it was enacted because people in Cook County (where Chicago is)were going to the suburban counties (which have lower taxes) to buy cars and Cook County was losing a lot of revenue.
Kyla, I can tell you that it applies to cars in California, too. I bought my very first car in San Diego, but had to pay LA sales tax on it because that’s where I lived.
Sadly, at the time, LA sales tax rates were 0.5% higher than San Diego. Sure, it was only a Tercel, but that still adds up!
I love living close to the MA/NH border… just skip over there to buy anything other than food or clothes (which aren’t taxed here) and come back for dinner, as the meal tax in NH makes up for the fact that they don’t tax anything else.
I work in a corporately owned store, and it would be a pain to have to add in sales tax to all of the products on the list from corporate. Not that it’s all that hard to add in 5% sales tax, but they don’t make price tags that say $13.64, only $12.99. And if a customer complains about it, I welcome them to “taxachusetts.”
Seriously? I bought a car in Napa when I lived in Sonoma and I don’t remember that being an issue at all.
Maybe Napa and Sonoma have the same tax rate. Hm.
Wanna bet? Ever notice how many times you see expose’s on Dateline about the fact that Grocery Stores and Department’s stores advertised prices are often not reflected on the register. Almost EVERY time I go grocery shopping I end up finding an item that was rung wrong.
If you’re talking about Groceries, this is valid, but you’re dismissing the huge percentage of items that are priced at the manufacturer, not by the store. Clothes, Magazines, Candy and lots of other stuff. Does Nordstrom now need to print 15000 different labels to sell the same pair of Levis? I guess your method is going to require every store to go back to the good 'ole paper sticker pricing gun.
By must, I mean that if the government decided to mandate that all stores were to hide the tax there’d be riots. You’re forgetting that any store can include tax in the ticketed price any time they want, no one is stopping them. I think it’s safe to guess that the fact they don’t means this is the way consumers want it, or else it’s cheaper this way…a good thing.
This is simpler how?
it is normal here for stores to display prices inclusive of tax. As the tax is uniform nation-wide, and rarely changes, this doesn’t pose any logistical problems. This was not always the case in the past and until the 1960s catalogues frequently displayed prices ex-Sales Tax.
Today a few stores display prices ex-VAT; these are usually ones which cater mostly to trade buyers e.g. builders or plumbers merchants, who can buy tax-free and will charge the tax on the finished product fitted and supplied to the end user
Yeah, which is another reason why the ticket price should be the price you pay, much easier to notice if they are charging you correctly or not.
Yes, good point (though the only things I can think of that have the price printed by the manufacturer are books, mags etc, obviously the US is different there.)
US consumers are obviously happy with it, I’d find it a real pain in the arse, but then it’s you guys who have to deal with it.
That would be simpler for the consumer because the ticket price would be the price they pay at the counter. It would maintain the current simplicity for the manufacturer because they can still advertise nationwide with one price. On the downside, it would mean the retailer has to ticket items tax inclusive.