I am NOT opposed to the idea of taxing the “sale price” of an item, before the coupons are applied. The coupons are a way for the manufacturer to give you back some money, so the “price” of the item is still the same. It would be a little odd that two people would buy the same jar of peanut butter and one would pay more sales tax than the other, simply becuase the other was smart enough to get a coupon (which saved them money on the purchase).
On the other hand, I would strongly oppose taxing the “suggested retail value” rather than the sales price for an item; if the store sells something to everybody at a certain price, THAT is what the item is worth, and that is what tax should be paid on, not some artificial price.
And I oppose (less strongly) taxing car purchases without regard to trade-in value. When the old car was purchased, sales tax was paid. The residual value of the car is a value that is being provided to the dealer as part of the purchase, and it represents an already-taxed value which should not be taxed again.
I say “less strongly” because from a logical perspective, you can argue that the sales price of the car is the total value given for the car, which means both the money and the trade-in. The trade-in has a cash value, and if we ignore that it was already taxed, it is simply another way to meet the purchase price of the car.
But COUPONS? they have no value — they say so right on the coupons, their cash value is virtually nil. You could sell your used car, and then take the cash and more cash and buy a new car.
Again, from a “comparison” argument — it doesn’t makes sense for two people buying the same car for the same total price to pay two different sales tax values, simply because one person sold his used car to the dealer, and another sold it to his neighbor for the same price.
BTW, part of this argument would hinge on whether the purchaser of a used car has to pay sales tax. If the dealership sells that used car and the purchaser pays sales tax, it makes no sense that the person trading it in had to pay sales tax. AND, if the private purchaser (the next-door neighbor) had to pay sales tax to register the car), the seller should have been able to deduct that when buying his next car.
But in the end, it’s kind of silly to try to argue taxes logically; the state legislators, elected by the people, decide how the people would like to pay for their government, and if the people don’t like it, they should vote the legislators out of office.
I would still argue though the consumate principle of taxes — they should be fairly and evenly applied to all people in similar circumstances. Two people making the same purchase with comparable circumstance should pay the same tax.
I love it.
Both the pre-coupon price and suggested retail price are bogus standards for taxation. I don’t really see how one is different than the other for this argument.
Well, I could flip the question around and ask you why I should be taxed on money I never spent, after all, that is what a sales tax is, isn't it? A fee charged by the government on the total dollar amount collected for goods and/or services provided. If, because of my coupons, I hand over $10.00 cash to your $15.00, why should i pay a tax on money that was never collected from the merchant by me?
The article doesn't say one way or the other, but will food now be taxed in CT? It wasn't in the past unless it was considered "junk food". If so, this goes way beyond the coupon thing.
I'm so disgusted by this state, we continually elect hard core progressives, and some in this state even consider Lieberman a conservative for God's sake.
This new budget proposed by Malloy goes 180 degrees against the trend in the rest of the country. Even NY and NJ are starting to get it, but not CT. To paraphrase Davy Crockett, The state of CT can go to hell, I'm moving to Texas.