Quotulatiousness

March 4, 2010

Shooting the messenger over extra taxes

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 07:32

An article in the Chicago Tribune talks about the latest “extra” to appear on restaurant bills in San Francisco: the “health” charge. This is how many restaurants in the city are handling the latest tax increase — making it explicit on the bill — but the Tribune writer appears to feel the restaurant owners should “eat” the new tax as “part of doing business”. Implied in this is that the restaurants shouldn’t raise prices either.

So, let’s all blame those evil restaurant owners, shall we?

The rationale for this one is to cover the employers’ mandatory contribution to the City’s “Healthy San Francisco” health-coverage system. The charge actually is levied on employers, but at least some restaurants are adding a few dollars or percentage points to each customer’s bill to cover this charge.

The restaurants’ excuse for assessing this charge separately is to let customers know how much they’re paying for employees’ health coverage. That’s the same excuse hotels use when they add “resort” or “housekeeping” fees to unsuspecting guests’ room bills. It’s the same excuse airlines would use to exclude fuel surcharges from their advertised fares if the Department of Transportation would allow them. And it’s sheer nonsense. Employees’ health insurance is no less of a cost of doing business than rent, property taxes, food costs, security services and all the other inputs businesses require to operate. To single out health care for a separate surcharge is unwarranted.

What’s missing here is the distinction between mandatory fees or taxes which various levels of government impose, and extra charges for things which logically should be intrinsic to the basic price. I agree that adding a “housekeeping” item to a hotel bill is wrong, but calling out a new tax that has to be paid is correct. Hidden taxes (in which category the Tribune writer misleadingly includes the San Francisco “health” charge) are the ones that don’t get itemized for you on your bill . . . that’s the “hidden” part.

Hidden taxes are far worse than itemized entries, because when prices rise due to changes in the tax rate, they naturally blame the seller (who doesn’t benefit from the raised price) and not the government which raised the tax rate underlying the price increase.

December 15, 2009

The rise of California wine

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Europe, France, USA, Wine — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 07:18

H/T to Jon, my former virtual landlord.

September 10, 2009

Random links

Filed under: Randomness — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 17:43

A few links that I found interesting or amusing:

  • It was 70 years ago today. Then: “Parliament will decide.” Now: “we require that military deployments … be supported by the Parliament of Canada.” Chalk one up for Mackenzie King, as he was right then and Stephen Harper is right to follow his precedent.
  • Let’s all hear it for “Open Mike” Duvall, former California Republican state representative. Everyone needs standards, and Duvall sets a very low one indeed.
  • The Minnesota Vikings cut WR Bobby Wade (in spite of him having taken a big pay cut to stay with the team this season) and replace him with former Philadelphia Eagles/New England Patriots WR Greg Ellis (who played for Brad Childress).
  • Wi-Fi Isn’t the Best Way to Network…Right?
  • The CBC shocks us all . . . and decides to broadcast a program that offends certain groups in Quebec.
  • Two Royal Marine officers traverse the Northwest Passage in an open boat.
  • Thinner is not cheaper: the paternalistic urge to get us all to lose weight won’t make healthcare any less expensive.

Oh, and last, but not least, “The Guild” Season 3, Episode 2 (belated H/T to Ghost of a Flea for bringing it to my attention):

<br /><a href="http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-US&#038;vid=bdab0fe5-ecc7-4f5e-a946-feefa45d531b" target="_new" title="Season 3 - Episode 2: Anarchy!">Video: Season 3 &#8211; Episode 2: Anarchy!</a>

August 4, 2009

California looking for all kinds of new sources of income

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Government, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 14:34

Neil Gaiman has some issues with the California tax department (individual Twitter messages, in sequence):

It wasn’t identity theft screwing up my credit rating. Twas the idiot state of idiot california deciding I lived there & wasn’t paying tax.

I know that California is bankrupt and stupid, but ohhhh the stupidness and ohhh the cupidity. Twerps.

They decided I lived there & wasn’t paying tax & took out a Tax Lien; then cancelled it when we yelled, but it lives on in the credit rpt.

Right. I just spoke to a nice man who pretended he wasn’t in India who said he’d get onto fixing it. We shall see what happens.

July 12, 2009

Sauce for the goose

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Law, USA — Tags: — Nicholas @ 13:08

Rick Newcombe provides an insight into why Los Angeles is suffering from a killer combination of rising unemployment and tax rates that no longer meet expenses:

[. . .] 15 years ago we had a dispute with the city over our business tax classification. The city argued that we should be in an “occupations and professions” classification that has an extremely high tax rate, while we fought for a “wholesale and retail” classification with a much lower rate. The city forced us to invest a small fortune in legal fees over two years, but we felt it was worth it in order to establish the correct classification once and for all.

After enduring a series of bureaucratic hearings, we anxiously awaited a ruling to find out what our tax rate would be. Everything was at stake. We had already decided that if we lost, we would move.

You can imagine how relieved we were on July 1, 1994, when the ruling was issued. We won, and firmly planted our roots in the City of Angels and proceeded to build our business.

Everything was fine until the city started running out of money in 2007. Suddenly, the city announced that it was going to ignore its own ruling and reclassify us in the higher tax category. Even more incredible is the fact that the new classification was to be imposed retroactively to 2004 with interest and penalties. No explanation was given for the new classification, or for the city’s decision to ignore its 1994 ruling.

Their official position is that the city is not bound by past rulings — only taxpayers are. This is why we have been forced to file a lawsuit. We will let the courts decide whether it is legal for adverse rulings to apply only to taxpayers and not to the city.

The rule of law requires that both parties are equally subject to the outcome of a trial, win or lose. The city clearly feels that it’s above that.

(Cross-posted to the old blog, http://bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/005574.html.)

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress