Đi đến phần nội dung
Trả lời

'Including Tax'

viết bởi 3rdblade, Ngày 11 tháng 4 năm 2011

Tin nhắn: 7

Nội dung: English

3rdblade (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 03:31:08 Ngày 11 tháng 4 năm 2011

I got a message recently saying the cost of something was '$50 inc. GST'. (GST is a tax, 10% of the price). In Australia we normally only write the amount to be paid, rather than the price before tax, but it's not a hard rule. Airlines, for example, seem to like telling you about taxes later. In the case above, I thought it could mean '$50, and you must include $5 extra, so it's actually $55' or '$50, which already includes the tax.' It turned out to be latter. Bottom line is, the meaning of 'include' was a little hazy and I wondered if it would be less so in EO.

'$55, imposto adonita' should mean '$55, tax already finished being added.' Is that about right?

danielcg (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 04:56:22 Ngày 11 tháng 4 năm 2011

Yes, and "imposto aldonota" would mean just the opposite, that is, that you must add the tax to the $ 55.

Regards,

Daniel

PS: I understand you meant "imposto aldonita" and the "l" was missing.

3rdblade:
'$55, imposto adonita' should mean '$55, tax already finished being added.' Is that about right?

3rdblade (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 05:19:50 Ngày 11 tháng 4 năm 2011

danielcg:PS: I understand you meant "imposto aldonita" and the "l" was missing.
Yes, that was a typo. lango.gif

Thanks for the reply!

Rogir (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 12:07:32 Ngày 11 tháng 4 năm 2011

You might also say (inkluzivas imposton) or (kun imposto).

Chainy (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 20:11:46 Ngày 11 tháng 4 năm 2011

3rdblade:'$50 inc. GST'
In the UK, we'd call that VAT. Or, in Esperanto it would be AVI

So, you'd probably say "$50 inkluzive AVI"

ceigered (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 12:10:14 Ngày 12 tháng 4 năm 2011

3rdblade:In the case above, I thought it could mean '$50, and you must include $5 extra, so it's actually $55' or '$50, which already includes the tax.' It turned out to be latter. Bottom line is, the meaning of 'include' was a little hazy
I'm sure it's always (or should be, if not ring the ombudsman or whatever they're called for advertising lango.gif) done so that:
- if you're paying $55, it's "$50 excl. GST"
- if you're paying $50, it's "$50 inc. GST".

I believe if they get that wrong, it's false advertising.

But yes, it's silly. There's no point in advertising it to the consumer, they should make it mandatory that they can only advertise a price already including GST, and so that if they try to charge extra for GST later the consumer can go "sorry, you advertised $n, so I'm paying $n, taking out the GST is your responsibility not mine".

Of course, GST is sort of problematic to begin with. What ever happened to getting rid of all the other taxes with just GST? rido.gif

erinja (Xem thông tin cá nhân) 13:53:47 Ngày 12 tháng 4 năm 2011

In the US it's standard practice not to include tax. No prices ever include tax. You have to do the math in your head if you want to know exactly how much you'll have to pay. Only airfares are routinely marked as to whether they include taxes and fees, because airfare taxes and fees are much more complex (and much more expensive) than normal sales tax.

I'm not sure of the exact reason for this but each state has a different sales tax (and a few have none at all) so the non-marking of taxes might be a way for retailers to be able to use the same advertising nationwide.

Quay lại