Ke daftar isi
Balas

'Including Tax'

dari 3rdblade, 11 April 2011

Pesan: 7

Bahasa: English

3rdblade (Tunjukkan profil) 11 April 2011 03.31.08

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 (Tunjukkan profil) 11 April 2011 04.56.22

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 (Tunjukkan profil) 11 April 2011 05.19.50

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 (Tunjukkan profil) 11 April 2011 12.07.32

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

Chainy (Tunjukkan profil) 11 April 2011 20.11.46

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 (Tunjukkan profil) 12 April 2011 12.10.14

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 (Tunjukkan profil) 12 April 2011 13.53.47

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.

Kembali ke atas