1. Allow companies to advertise a price exclusive of tax (but inclusive of fees)
2. Require companies to list a single total price where the final price the customer pays is less than or equal to. So their advertised price would be inclusive of the highest tax rate the customer would be required to pay.
The oft-cited tax calculation "problem" is just an excuse.
But that's what they want -- to advertise the price exclusive of tax.
And some of the fees are the same thing. They depend on different factors and aren't necessarily fixed. You could say that fixed fees have to be included, but that's an obvious loophole; they'll make the fee $5 if you're in California and $4.99 otherwise. Or $5 normally and $0 if you meet some esoteric condition that hardly anybody does, if you require the minimum fee to be included.
> Require companies to list a single total price where the final price the customer pays is less than or equal to. So their advertised price would be inclusive of the highest tax rate the customer would be required to pay.
But then they can't advertise the lower price even if that's what many or most of their customers would actually be paying. Suppose San Francisco has a weird law that would add 300% to the price of the product but only for people who live there, and you're advertising across the entire state.
Also, then they bypass it by advertising a product which is only available to be shipped to addresses in states with no sales tax or expensive regulatory requirements. When you show up and ask for that product they say it isn't available to you but here's one that is which is really the same thing under a different SKU, for the same price exclusive of local taxes and fees.
But the collection and remittance of the taxes to the specific taxing authorities is a whole other ballgame. Whether or not you see "$499 + $17 + $12 + $34" or you see "$571" on an item... the 'correct' amounts need to be identified, accounted for and sent to the specific taxing authorities. Doing that well enough, at scale, is not trivial, depending on where you're selling to, and how much.
"Impossible" to have one single price that is applicable to every single potential buyer in all cases.
Easiest example: if a computer is advertised as $2199 "including all taxes!" and a buyer who is tax exempt is buying... they wouldn't pay the $2199 advertised price (or... shouldn't).
You can't honestly believe that only the US has different tax rates depending on which state/city you are in?
Obviously it could be difficult but once the sale happens you need to know the final price. So if you can figure out when selling the good you can figure it out when advertising the good.
India has two, maybe three, levels of taxation: central, state and maybe local. In America, you may have dozens of overlapping cities, counties, water districts, school districts and high school districts before we get to municipal, state and federal.
The big one that tripped up the client was not charging/collecting tax on shipping. They weren't, but the tax engine said that they should be. I think the rules on that had changed sometimes perhaps 10-15 years earlier in the areas they served, but they never kept abreast of that change. This was already several years ago, so my recollection is a bit hazy now.
What is this nonsense?
Businesses advertise "Widget is $PRICE + applicable tax". When you go to an individual store you pay ($PRICE + applicable tax). On the receipt it can show a breakdown of what that is.
If that's hard to do on the backend for the business too fucking bad. Consumers should know exactly what they're going to be asked to pay upfront.
Be transparent with the price, tell the consumer precisely what they're going to be paying upfront. If it's hard, too bad, figure it out or don't be in business. At least that's how it should be.
I did some POS work for a company years back and tried to integrate 'taxes'. I was replacing an earlier system, and I used modern tax SaaS (avalara, IIRC). The client was telling me all my taxes were wrong, but... digging in... Avalara was correct, and the client had been calculating and collecting taxes wrong for... about 15 years. I had no way to try to figure out how they were doing it 'wrong' to match how they'd been doing it. This had to do with 'service/labor' income vs 'product' vs 'chemicals' they used. Different counties in the same state had different rates (which changed over different months/years historically). Tribal lands had different rules still.
The biggest lesson I took from that was... if you do something (tax calculations), do it consistently and uniformly. Should they have been audited, it may have looked a bit better that they were at least consistent in their tax issues, instead of looking like they were explicitly trying to somehow intentionally scam customers or the govt.